The appellant, H.A. Willoughby, who was the plaintiff in the trial Court – the High Court of Lagos State (Cadide Johnson J., as he then was), claimed that having learnt from a company, known as the Cargo Handling Company Ltd., that a consignment of rice would arrive in the country for a Committee set up by the Federal Government, known as the Presidential Task Force Committee for Rice Affairs, and that if he was interested in purchasing some, he must deposit a sum of in the amount N2, 249,330.00 into the United Bank for Africa, which had an account for the Respondents in account No. 20011172471, he on 5th July, 1982, made a deposit of this amount into that account. The appellant’s case was also that it was he who would give instruction to the Respondents as to the disposal of the amount, when the consignment of rice arrived.

But the end of August 1982, the appellant had had no news of the rice and he approached “officials of the Defendants” for refund of his money. It was then the officials informed Appellant that the money had been paid to a company named Howell Jones Ltd. Appellant denied knowledge of this company.

Now, one should pause here. The Managing Director of the Company Howell Jones Ltd. had many aliases. He was known as Anthony Onitiri (obviously a Christian name), Mallam Tukur Abdulai (obviously, a Moslem name). Howard Jones Ltd. itself is also known as Howell Johnson Ltd. Then another name surfaced. A firm of Solicitors, John O. Ige & Co., the principal of which is John Olagoke Ige, a lawyer with address at 36A West Pavilion, Tafawa Balewa Square, Lagos, gave evidence for the Respondents. The firm of solicitors, appellant was informed, had written to the respondents on behalf of the appellant, and on his instruction, that the appellant’s money, as aforesaid, was for the account of Howell Jones Ltd. alias Howell Johnson Ltd., alias Anthony Onitiri Managing Director, alias Mallam Turkur Abdulai, Managing Director.

The Respondent’s case is simply as follows: They had no business dealing with the Appellant prior to 5th July 1982. And prior to that date, Howell Johnson Ltd., alias Howell Jones Ltd. alias Anthony Onitiri, alias Mallam Turkur Abdulai, admittedly a customer of the Respondents, had instructed the Respondents that the sum of N2, 249,330.00 was to be paid into account No. 2011172471 at U.B.A. – the same amount and the same account number respectively averred by the Appellant, but with this difference, that the sum was to the account and benefit of the ubiquitously named Howard Jones, Ltd. The Respondents then pleaded estoppel as regards a letter written by the Appellant on 1st September 1982 to the effect that the money was for the account of the Howell Johnson Ltd. and also that the Appellants Solicitor John O. Ige, heretofore referred, had written on behalf of the Appellant that the payment was made to the Respondents for the account of Howell Johnson.

The appellant himself gave evidence. In that evidence the name of Odesanya, an official of the Respondent’s Bank featured. He was the principal figure that transacted the business with the Appellant. He told the Appellant about consignment of rice, he gave appellant the account number, the appellant gave the original paying-in-slip to Odesanya. It was Odesanya he contacted when he started to entertain doubts about the transaction. It was Odesanya who advised him to write to Howell Jones Nig. Ltd. (a point now being used by the Respondents to constitute estoppel). Indeed, it was Odesanya to whom he handed the letter for Howell Jones as the appellant did not know Howell Jones’s address.

The case was adjourned for address of counsel, but on the next adjourned date when counsel for the defendants/respondents moved to address the court, counsel for the appellant applied to call “additional evidence and to recall and “cross-examination Ige”. She stated that she was “in an unsuitable condition” when Ige gave evidence as her brother had just died. The application was opposed but the learned trial Judge granted the application in the interest justice under what he termed his “inherent jurisdiction.

It was this ruling that went on appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal.

An appeal to the Supreme Court was entered.