This is one more case in the series starting with the decision of this Court in Dominic Ifezue v. Mbadugba (1984) 5 S. C 76, that case of course dealt with the interpretation of Section 258 (1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979 (hereinafter known as the Constitution).

The short constitutional point taken in this appeal came about this way. In Suit No. 1/38/80 in the Ibadan Judicial Division of Oyo State, the Respondents, as Plaintiffs, sued the appellant as defendants claiming as follows:-

On the 12th October, 1982 Oguntoye, J gave judgment allowing all the claim of the plaintiffs. I shall return to the proceedings in the High Court later. The defendants/appellants appealed to the Court of appeal which on 22nd May, 1986 dismissed their appeal. The appellants then appealed to Court. Three grounds of appeal were originally filed. On the 18th day of May, 1987 learned Senior Advocator for the appellants, Professor A. B. Kasunmu moved this court praying for leave to argue an additional ground of appeal couched in the following terms;

That prayer was granted. It is necessary now to set down the relevant proceedings of the Trial Court. At the conclusion of the evidence on page 126 learned counsel to the plaintiffs and defendants in the trial Court addressed the Court as stated on pages 127 – 138 of the Record of Proceedings. At the conclusion of that address on page 138 the learned trial Judge, D.E.A Oguntade, J recorded this-

This was on the top part of page 139 of the Record. Lower down on that same page the proceedings for 23/9/82 were recorded thus –

“Court: The point raised by Mr. Peluelan as to the filling of the Counter-Claim has just been raised before me in another matter, and I wish to consider the point further. Judgment is therefore, further reserved to 12th October, 1982.

The trial Judge gave judgment in favour of the respondents and granted all the reliefs sought. The appellants' appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on all grounds. They further appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the judgments of the Court of Appeal and the High Court were void because the High Court judgements was delivered three months after conclusion of addresses in breach of s. 158(1) of the 1979 constitution.