The respondent sued the appellant at the High Court claiming the sum of $16,100 or the naira equivalent of N1, 288,000.00. It also claimed a return of a generating set in the custody of the appellant and an order that the appellant release all the personal goods earlier conveyed to him by a deed of transfer made sometime in 1990. The respondent claimed that sometime in 1990, it entered into a contract with the Federal Ministry of Works to supply foundry materials out of which the sum of $16,100 was to be paid to it as commission. The respondent's chairman had agreed with the appellant that the $16,100 would be paid into the appellant's account in Switzerland. The respondent's Chairman was then made a proxy to the account for the purpose of remittance. It was alleged that the appel¬lant diverted and misappropriated the money.

The appellant denied that the respondent earned the sum of $16,100 claimed by it as commission. He also denied that he diverted and misappropriated the said sum. He averred that the amount of $16,100 paid into his account was paid to him by his former employer and was intended solely for the settlement of an outstand¬ing obligation to him and was not paid as commission due to the respondent. He also contended that the claim of the respondent was tainted with illegality for failure to seek and obtain the approval of the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Ministry of Finance before the remittance of $16,100 to his Swiss account. He then counter-claimed against the respondent for a declaration that the purported suspension¬ of the appellant by the respondent was null and void and of no effect whatsoever and an order of reinstatement. He also counter-claimed for various sums as balance outstanding on his salary, membership allowance, personal funds expended in the running of the respondent company and amount expended towards domestic staff salaries, petty cash and expenses of the company claim.

At the conclusion of trial, the trial court found for the respondent in respect of its claim for the commission of $16,100 and the return of its generating set. Its remaining claim was refused. On the other hand, the trial court found for the appellant in respect of his claim for payment of balance of his salary and membership dues.

Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal