The respondent (the Plaintiff in the lower court by a contract of insurance policy insured its goods against theft with the appellant (the defendant in the court below). The insurance policy issued to the respondent covered the period 1st April, 1983 to 31st March, 1984. During the currency of the policy the respondent alleged that its premises were broken into by unknown persons and the insured goods were removed. Consequently, the respondent notified the appellant and called on it to pay the sum of =N=150,000.00 which according to it, was the value of the goods so removed. In other words, the respondent's claim is for indemnity against the loss which it claimed it sustained predicating it on the insurance policy. The appellant repudiated the claim consequent upon which the respondent took on a writ of summons claiming the said sum.

After the filing and the exchange of pleadings the case proceeded to trial. At the conclusion of evidence counsel on both sides addressed the court. In a reserved judgment, the learned trial Judge allowed the claim of the respondent.

Dissatisfied, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.