Facts:

Sometime in March 2005, Acmel Nigeria Ltd & Bode Ayeni (Appellants) were informed by Wemi Shada & Associates (2nd Respondent), the agent of First Bank Nigeria Plc. (1st Respondent), that the 1st Respondent intended to sell its property. The asking price was fixed at ₦20,000.000.00. The Appellant, on the information of the 2nd Respondent, promptly issued a banker’s cheque for the sum of ₦20,000,000.00 in favour of the 1st Respondent. After 10 months it returned the cheque to the Appellants claiming that its management had raised the asking price to ₦25,000,000.00. The Appellant raised another cheque for the additional ₦5,000,000.00 in favour of the 1st Respondent. The two cheques totalling ₦25,000,000.00, were given to the 2nd Respondent, as the agent of the 1st Respondent. Sequel to the payment of the ₦25,000,000.00 the Appellants were let into the possession of the property by the 2nd Respondent in his capacity as 1st Respondent’s agent. The Appellants believing the transaction to be a done deal proceeded to spend an additional sum of ₦5,000,000.00 renovating the property. After 7 months of the receipt of the cheques for ₦25,000,000.00, the 1st Respondent again returned the two cheques for ₦25,000,000.00 stating that they still needed the consent of the Central Bank of Nigeria before completing the sale. Upon obtaining formal approval of the CBN authorizing the sale of the property, the 1st Respondent informed the 2nd Respondent that the property was going to be sold through competitive bidding, and then instructed the 2nd Respondent to bid on behalf of the Appellants (as the 2nd Appellant was away abroad and was not aware of the bidding on their behalf). Upon the 2nd Appellant’s return, he was told that the property had been sold to the highest bidder and that their bid was not the highest. All efforts made by the 2nd Appellant to have the matter settled amicably fell through. At this juncture the Appellants were constrained to sue the Respondents, seeking specific performance and injunctive reliefs. The 1st and 3rd Respondents also counterclaimed against the Appellants and the 2nd Respondent. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the Appellants’ claim, as well as the 1st and 3rd Respondents’ counterclaim.

Dissatisfied, the Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The 1st and 3rd Respondents also cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants’ appeal, as well as the 1st and 3rd Respondents’ cross-appeal. Further aggrieved, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The 1st and 3rd Respondents also aggrieved, cross-appealed