By a Writ of Summons issued at the Onitsha Judicial Division of High Court of East Central State of the Federation in July 1971, the Respondents, who were the Plaintiffs, claimed as follows –

At the trial, the Respondents called eight witnesses. They relied upon traditional evidence, acts of ownership and possession and the ownership of adjacent lands in support of their said claims.

The Appellants, who were Defendants, called six Witnesses. They also claimed that the land belongs to them, however, they did not file any counter-claim in respect of the land in dispute.

In his Judgment of 19/7/1997, the learned trial Judge, Keazor, J., found the traditional history of the Respondents more reliable than that of the Appellants, and concluded as follows :

Placed side by side with each other, the evidence of the Plaintiffs definitely tells the balance on the Imaginary scale In favour of the Plaintiffs. I hold that they have proved their case.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal and from the Grounds of Appeal filed, they formulated eleven Issues for Determination. The Respondents formulated seven Issues, and submitted further that the

"Appellants' Issues 3-8 does not arise from Ground 12 or any other Ground"; furthermore, that:

Appellants' Issues 3-9 and 3-10 are co-related within Ground 13, which complained that the learned trial Judge failed to make a definite and categorical finding that the Plaintiffs failed to prove acts of possession or ownership of adjacent lands as claimed by them. Accordingly, said Issues 3-9 and 3-10 are moot and academic, as those aggrieved thereby are the Plaintiffs, not the Appellants, who had not suffered any prejudice. It is the Plaintiffs, who ought to complain and appeal and not the Defendants/Appellants.

In its Judgment delivered on 12/5/2003, the Court of Appeal held that Appellants' Issue 8 does not arise from Ground 12, and struck out the said Issue with all the arguments in support.

The Court of Appeal did not stop there; it also struck out Issues 9 and 10 and determined the Appeal on the remaining Issues Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11. At the end of the day, it resolved the said Issues against the Appellants. It, therefore, dismissed their Appeal and affirmed the trial Court's decision.

Dissatisfied, Appellants appealed to this Court.