The appellant sued the respondents, French companies, for breach of contract which to the effect that the appellant would be entitled to a 5% commission from the payment arising from all the jobs executed in Nigeria by the respondents. It seem that the respondents did not live up to their biding as per the said contract hence the appellant sued them claiming a number of reliefs including a declaration that he was entitled to a commission of 5% as referred to above, an injunction restraining the respondents from claiming more than 95% of the contract value and an order directing that the 5% be paid into an escrow account, in the same of the appellant.

The statement of claim of the appellant did not disclose where the contract was entered into and where it would be performed. However, the contractual sum was to be collected in Switzerland.

The appellant was later granted leave to issue and serve the writ of summons and statement of claim out of jurisdiction (in France). He was granted an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents and their agents from withdrawing any money from the Central Bank of Nigeria, Federal Ministry of Mines, Power and Steel and other associated bodies. Thereafter, the respondents applied for the discharge of all the orders made by the court. Also the respondents applied that the appellant's motion on notice be stayed pending the application for discharge. The main contention of the respondents was that the court lacked jurisdiction in that the contract was neither entered into, nor to be perform, within the jurisdiction of the court. The appellant's counter affidavit was to the effect that the contract was negotiated in Nigeria. According to him, the terms already agreed were communicated to him in his address in London.

The trial court in its ruling declined jurisdiction to handle the matter holding that the interest of justice would be better served if the proceedings were done abroad since the respondents were in France and all the contract documents were in French. Furthermore, the payment claimed by the appellant was to be made in Switzerland.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, the appellant appealed to the court of appeal.