Facts:

The Appellant (Plaintiff) who is a federal government agency charged with the responsibility to provide, promote and encourage the acquisition of skills in the industry and commerce and to provide training for skills in management for technical and entrepreneurial development, stated in their averment that the 1st Respondent (1st defendant), is a limited liability company registered with the Appellant as a contributor paying its contribution to the Appellant from 1989 up to 2006. On January 4, 2010, the Appellant wrote the 1st Respondent requesting payment of its contribution for the 2007-2009 periods. Again, on the 31st January 2012, the Appellant through its counsel wrote and explained the need for the 1st Respondent to pay its annual contribution. The 1st Respondent via a reply letter acknowledged its liability to pay its statutory contribution to the Appellant from the year 2011. The Appellant further wrote the 1st Respondent to request a meeting with the 1st Respondent to resolve grey areas to which the 1st Respondent replied that the managers of the SIMCO free zones company had advised it that it is not liable to pay the contribution being demanded from it by the Appellant. The Appellant stated that it then took up the issue with the 2nd Respondent by its requesting the 2nd Respondent (2nd Defendant) to instruct the 1st Respondent to pay its contribution, and the Minister for Industry, Trade and Investment clarified the position that the companies operating in the free trade zones are not liable to make contribution to the Appellant. The 1st Respondent stated that its operation does not require approval for expatriate quota and that as an enterprise that operates within the free zone it enjoys exemption from Federal, State and Local Governments’ taxes, levies and rates. It stated that contrary to the Appellant’s claim it is not a registered contributor with the Appellant.
The suit was heard on the merits and the learned trial judge of the Federal High Court (trial court), after construing the provisions of sections 6(1)-(3) of the Industrial Training Fund Act along with the provisions of sections 8 and 18(1) of the Nigeria Export Processing Zone Act LPN (2004) held that those liable to make contribution to industrial training fund are organizations public or private including companies situate in the Free trade zones which require approval for expatriate quota and/or utilizing customs services in matters of export and import. The trial court consequent upon its finding aforesaid dismissed the Appellant’s claim.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.