Facts:

The 2nd respondent granted a facility to the appellant. The facility was secured by a legal mortgage of property covered by a certificate of occupancy situated at No. 3 Kachia Road, Shopping Complex, Kaduna South, Kaduna State. The debt fell due and the appellant could not repay the loan. An agreement was reached to allow the appellant to sell the property in order to repay the loan. At the expiration of the time given to the appellant to sell the land, a further extension of time was granted him to the 30th April, 1992.
However, the appellant was unable to sell the land on the due date and the 1st respondent exercising its right of sale sold the property to the 1st respondent after advertising the sale in a National Newspaper and a notice of sale pasted on the property. 5th of June, 1992 was fixed for the public auction and on that date, the 2nd respondent sold the property for N3,700,000. 00 (Three Million, Seven Hundred Thousand Naira) after two days’ notice of the auction, to the 1st respondent who was the highest bidder. The 1st respondent applied for and was granted Governor’s consent in respect of the land. Two years later, in 1994, the appellant wrote a petition to the then Military Governor of Kaduna State in respect of the sale of the property. Consequently, the Governor directed the 3rd respondent to suspend activities on the perfection of title to the property until the resolution of the allegations of the appellant.
The appellant also filed a suit against the respondents at the High Court of Kaduna State seeking an order of the court to set aside the sale on the ground that the sale did not comply with the provisions of the Land Use Act and that consent was not sought until after he had successfully repaid the debt. He further alleged that the consent given by the Governor was revoked and that the property was not sold for its market value because proper evaluation was not done in order to determine the true value before sale was effected.
The appellant also alleged that a licensed auctioneer was not appointed to carry out the sale. The respondents filed their defence wherein they denied the allegations and also incorporated a counter claim. The matter went to trial and the parties adduced evidence. The appellant conceded that the payment he made was insufficient to liquidate the debt. At the end of trial, the court gave judgment in favour of the appellant and dissatisfied, the respondents filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Division. In response to the appeal, the appellant filed a respondent’s notice seeking to affirm the judgment of the trial court on grounds other than that relied on by the court.
The appellant also raised a preliminary objection to some of the grounds of appeal. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant adopted his argument relating to the preliminary objection but failed to seek and obtain the leave of the court to do so. The preliminary objection was discountenanced by the Court of Appeal on the ground that having not sought and obtained the leave of court to move it, same was considered abandoned. At the end of proceedings, the court allowed the appeal and held that from the evidence available to the trial court, the appellant was unable to prove the allegations concerning the sale of the property. The court further held that the decision of the trial court was perverse and that a respondent’s notice cannot be used to affirm and vary a perverse decision. The appellant was dissatisfied with the Court of Appeal’s decision and filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Abuja urging the court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal.