From the pleadings of the parties, it is very obvious that there was a loan/credit facility transaction between the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant which later resulted in a dispute between the parties following the failure of the Plaintiffs to repay same. However, at the stage in which judgment was entered by the trial Court in the counter claim against the Appellants, evidence had not been called. It is also very important to note, at this stage, that at the time judgment was so entered, there is no evidence on record to show that the Respondents motion on notice to file a Statement of Defence out of time and to deem what had been filed and served as properly filed and served, which was fixed for hearing in December, 1995 was ever heard and granted on or before the 23rd day of January, 1996 when judgment was entered on the said counter claim on the ground that the Appellants failed and or neglected to file any defence thereto despite service of same on them.

Before the judgment was entered, S. O. ITODO Esq., of counsel for the Plaintiffs applied to the Court to be discharged from the case on the ground that his clients had ceased to further instruct him on the matter, to which application learned counsel for the Defendants, OMENGALA Esq., did not oppose as a result of which the learned trial Judge ruled, (inter alia, as follows:-

From the above, it is very clear that what started as an application of counsel to be relieved of his obligation to further appear and conduct his professional duties to his clients ended up with the striking out of the suit. The Plaintiffs were not present in Court on that day but there is an order by the Court that they be notified of the striking out of the suit.

The proceeding of that day became more dramatic when soon after making the above order, the following recordings were made by the learned trial Judge: