Facts:

The respondent/plaintiff was party to an equipment lease agreement dated 6 June 1996 from the appellant/defendant. A dispute arose over the subject matter of the lease the MT Oceanus Alfa. The appellant asserted certain rights over the vessel and placed it under a “notional arrest.” The respondent (as plaintiff) applied to court for an interim order at an ex parte hearing at which it contended that it believed that the appellants were in the process of removing the vessel from Kirikiri, Apapa in Nigerian waters and would tamper with its engine and hull. The Federal High Court granted an order, amongst other orders, restraining the appellants from “tampering with the vessel”. The appellants (as defendants) sought to discharge the interim orders contending that the respondent had suppressed and omitted certain material facts in the application for the interim orders.  

The respondents argued that a full disclosure had been made. The trial court in a considered ruling refused to discharge the order but rather converted the interim orders into interlocutory orders, restored possession and operation of the vessel to the respondents pending the determination of the suit. The appellants contend that some of the findings of the court prejudged the substantive issues for trial and that the issues determined by the trial court were not in dispute.