The Appellant was the Plaintiff who instituted an action in Ilorin Upper Area Court claiming a parcel of land from the Defendant the Respondent. After hearing the parties that Court gave judgment in favour of Plaintiff i.e. Appellant. The Respondent appealed to the High Court framed 8 grounds of Appeal. At the date the matter was set down hearing he sought the leave of the Court to file an additional ground of Appeal making it up to 9 grounds. On that same date the Respondent (as Appellant therein) decided to argue only ground 9. This method or practice adopted by the Respondent then was obviously opposed by the other party. The High Court overruled the Appellant's Counsel but in a reserved judgement dismissed the appeal on that one ground and made no further mention the other 8 grounds. The point in contention and adumbrated in the ground was that the Upper Area Court gave its judgment in chambers not in open Court and therefore such a procedure did violence to Constitution.

The Respondent thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that it was perverse for the High Court to hold that there was not on the records to suggest that the judgment was delivered in camera. The successful party cross-appealed on the ground that the unargued eight grounds should have been regarded as having been abandoned and should therefore have been struck out. The Court of Appeal in a reserved judgment allowed the Appeal stating in unmistakable terms that the trial in the Upper Area Court was obviously a nullity, having found that the Judgment was given in Chambers. It dismissed the Cross-Appeal describing the quest for its agitation as pure academic exercise. The Appellant then appealed to this Court.