Facts:

The appellant (the plaintiff in the court below), a steel miller, had given the 1st respondent (the 1st defendant in the court below) 450,000 kgs of iron rods on a sale or return basis before the appointment of the 2nd respondent as the receiver of the 1st respondent.

The appellant caused a writ of summons to be issued against the respondents in which it claimed the following reliefs:

(a) A declaration that the 450,000 kgs. of plaintiff’s marked iron rods presently lying at the premises of the defendant which were given to the 1st defendant by the plaintiff on a sale or return basis before the appointment of the 2nd defendant as the receiver of the 1st defendant is not subject to the said receivership as they do not form part of the assets of the 1st defendant over which the 2nd defendant as the receiver/manager of same has control.

(b) A declaration that the iron rods so described above which is manufactured according to the special style of the plaintiff is the property of the plaintiff.

(c) A mandatory injunction compelling and or directing the defendants to release forthwith the said iron rods to the plaintiff same being the property of the plaintiff.

(d) In the alternative to claim C above, an order directing the defendants to render account regarding the sale of the said iron rods as part of monies realised from the sale of same to the plaintiff.