The plaintiff/appellant gave money to the defendant/respondent on credit to enable him fulfil his contract to provide Timber but they stopped when he wasnt supplying sufficient quantity.
The respondent sued the appellant in negligence for allowing a 3rd party to open an account to which cheques fraudulently obtained against the government of northern Nigeria was paid into.
The Respondent's claim against the appellants, jointly and severally as follows:-
The respondent/plaintiff was a staff of the appellant/defendant, he was dismissed. He then sued and got judgment in default of appearance.
The plaintiff/appellants instituted an action against the defendant/respondents claiming compensation amongst other reliefs.
The suit was founded on the negligence of the 1st respondent, the driver of the 2nd respondent. It was pleaded, that on 9/12/91, the 1st respondent negligently drove Fiat trailer registration No.
The appellant filed an action against the selection and appointment of the 1st respondent to the traditional stool in dispute on the grounds that the 1st respondent descended from the female line.
The respondent sued the appellant at the trial court for trespass and libel. He claimed that the appellant posted an auction notice on his property when he was not indebted to them.
The appellant/plaintiff brought an action against the respondent/defendant for release of his crane which was on hire.
The respondent instituted action with respect to the land in dispute after parties had earlier (16 years before) settled out of court in a customary court by sharing the property into two.
The respondents pleaded settlement as root of their title to the land in dispute but put up a case of grant during trial.
The claim that eventually led to this appeal was commenced by the plaintiff/respondent before the High Court of Lagos State in Suit No. LD/1395/95.
Appellants and respondents were members of one village formerly known as and called Umuokpukpara, later changed to Ezihe. The village has six constituent kindreds units or wards.
The respondents' claims title to the chieftaincy stool in dispute but admitted that the staff of office of had been in the possession of the appellant.
The respondent provided money and land for the parties to set up a block making factory.