Facts:

The Respondent instituted an action against the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, the Federal Capital Territory Development Authority, and Marinzo Nigeria Limited as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants respectively at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja. The respondent claimed the ownership of Plot No. 96, Cadastral Zone C10, Wumbai District, Federal Capital Territory, Abuja on the ground that the plot of land was allocated to it by the 1st and 2nd defendants.
Later, the names of the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal Capital Territory Development Authority were struck out of the suit on their unopposed application to that effect thereby leaving Marinzo Nigeria Limited as the sole defendant to the suit. The appellant was later joined as the 2nd defendant to the suit on its application. After being joined, the appellant filed a defence and counter-claim, which was subsequently amended.
It was the respondent’s case at the trial that prior to its incorporation on 19th April 2011, its promoters applied for the plot of land in dispute in the name of Maililu Nigeria Limited and its application was granted by a letter of allocation dated 24th November 2010, which was admitted in evidence as exhibit C, and that it ratified the allocation at its first meeting after it was incorporated. However, no resolution/document evidencing the alleged ratification was tendered in evidence. The respondent stated that it took possession of the land and leased it to one Maclowe Properties Limited for ten years and when its lessee mobilised to the site, it was stopped from working on the land by some military officers who claimed that the property was allocated to Marinzo Nigeria Limited. The respondent stated that it then briefed its lawyer to conduct a legal search on the property from the office of Abuja Geographical Information System (AGIS) to confirm the claim that the plot of land was allocated to Marinzo Nigeria Limited, but the report showed that the property was actually allocated to the respondent.
In its judgment, the trial court dismissed the respondent’s claim on the ground that it failed to establish same. Relying on the evidence of DW1, DW2, and DW3 as well as on exhibits F, F1, F2, and F4, the trial court held that the appellant established its counter-claim and accordingly entered judgment for the appellant on its counter-claim.
Dissatisfied, the respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal, which relied on an excerpt from the judgment of the trial court that it is not in dispute that the plot of land, which led to the litigation was by exhibit C allocated to the respondent on 24th November 2010 before it was registered as a corporate entity to hold that the trial court did not find that exhibit C was invalid, and it therefore held that the plot of land was allocated to the respondent. The Court of Appeal further held that the trial court confused section 37 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990 which provided for the legal identity of a company upon registration distinct from its members with section 72 of the Act, which dealt with the issue of pre-incorporation contract and thereby came to a wrong conclusion. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court