In March, 1982 the respondent sought and obtained from the 1st appellant a loan of N1,036,000 for the purchase of a stone crushing plant. The money was paid by the 1st appellant to the vendors on behalf of the respondent. The loan was secured by an Investment and Mortgage Agreement, Exhibit 14, Clause 32 of the Agreement vests power in the 1st appellant to appoint a receiver/manager of the property and other assets charged or any part thereof. Also as part of the agreement, such receiver shall be deemed to be agent of the respondent.

In 1984 the respondent hired out the stone crushing machine to Guffanti (Nig) Ltd for 15 months. Guffanti failed to pay the hiring fee and also caused damage to the equipment. The respondent sued Guffanti and obtained judgment in the sum of N2.3 million. All these developments were known to the 1st appellant. Guffanti appealed against the judgment and obtained a conditional stay of execution which made N1.3 million of the judgment sum payable to the respondent with the respondent entering into a bond. In compliance with the order of the court, Guffanti issued a cheque in the name of the respondent but instead of paying it to the respondent as ordered by the court of Appeal, the 1st appellant collected the cheque and issued a receipt therefor. The 1st appellant had earlier appointed the 2nd appellant the receiver/manager of the respondent pursuant to clause 32 of Exhibit 14.

Following application to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and eventual rulings, the cheque collected by the 1st appellant was returned to the respondent. Meanwhile, the cheque had been in possession of the 1st appellant for a period of over 5 months. It is the loss suffered by the respondent for this period as a result of the refusal to release the cheque which would have enabled the respondent commence business with the stone crushing machine that resulted in this suit.

The appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, hence this appeal.