Facts:

The Appellants’ father, Mr. Ugwu Nsude had commence an action against the Defendant before the Customary Court of Enugu, in 2002 seeking an order to restrain the Defendant from tampering with his property and an interim injunction against the Defendant for trespassing on his land. In a unanimous judgment delivered on 23rd June, 2003, the court decided the matter in favour of the Appellants’ father. Meanwhile, another action had earlier been instituted against the Appellants’ father by one Mr. Nichodemus Anike (now late), who has now been substituted with the Respondents.
At the end of trial, the same panel of the same court delivered judgment in suit No. CCN/47L/2002, it delivered another judgment in another case, suit No. CCN/15L/2001, this time by a split decision of two to one. The judgment in suit no. CCN/47L/2002 was delivered in favour of Mr. Nicodemus Anike. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellants’ father approached the High Court of Enugu for leave to apply for a prerogative order of certiorari and upon leave being granted, he filed a motion on motion to quash the judgment in suit no. CCN/15L/2002 (sic). The High Court ruled in his favor and quashed the decision of the trial court for lack of jurisdiction.
Displeased with the judgment of the High Court, Nichodemus Anike, now substituted with the present Respondents, appealed to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed with the decision of the High Court and also held that the parties in both suits were not the same as Ugwu Nsude was sued by different plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal further held that the ground upon which the High Court granted the order of certiorari is not within the contemplation of the Administrative Law of Anambra State, 1986 as applicable to Enugu State or the principles guiding the grant of the order, but a ground which can only be ventilated on appeal. The court further held that as long as the Customary Court did not act outside its jurisdiction, an order of certiorari would not lie and any error of law committed within the court’s jurisdiction would not warrant the grant of the order. Aggrieved by the decision, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.