Facts:

The 1st Respondent, (the Plaintiff at the court below) instituted the action vide a Statement of Claim filed on 19th January, 2021, claiming several reliefs on oil theft and false misrepresentation. The 1st Respondent, in order to secure its claim, filed an ex parte application to preserve the res of litigation pending the hearing of the 1st Respondent’s motion on Notice for an interlocutory Mareva Injunction dated 19th January 2021. On 25th January, 2021, the said ex-parte application was moved and granted, and the res of litigation was preserved, as the Appellant, the 2nd – 5th Respondents and their banks were restrained from accessing the funds in their respective accounts.

The Appellant (the 5th Respondent at the lower Court), upon being served with the originating process and upon being aware of the ex-parte order, filed a Motion on Notice on the 1st of February, 2021, challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court to entertain the 1st Respondent’s claims, and praying the court to strike out the 1st Respondent’s suit and vacate the ex parte orders made on 25th January, 2021. The 1st Respondent on the other hand, filed a committal proceeding dated the 22nd of February, 2021 against some banks for alleged disobedience to the court’s ex parte order, which restrained the banks from accessing the funds of the Appellant and the 2nd – 5th Respondents.

The Court of Appeal delivered a ruling and held on the issue of priority of applications, that the first ruling of the court directing that all the applications would be heard together, still subsists, but he would start with the committal proceedings, then followed by other applications. On the issue of the lifespan of an ex parte order, the trial judge ruled that the order would still subsist pending the hearing of the motion on Notice for interlocutory mareva injunction (pages 13-18 of the record). The Appellant dissatisfied with the decision, filed a Notice of Appeal on the 17th March, 2021, setting out 3 (three) grounds of appeal and seeking reliefs from this court (Pages 19-27 of the Record).