Facts:

The Respondent (Plaintiff in the lower court) via a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, sought against the Appellants (defendants in the lower court) a relief of the sum $137,166.38 (One Hundred and Thirty-Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars, Thirty-Eight Cent) being the cost of supplying of spares, provisions and logistics for the 1st Appellant crew members as appointed by the 2nd Appellant, among other reliefs. The Respondent also filed an ex parte application seeking an Order for the arrest and detention of the 1st Appellant which was berthed offshore, Lagos Bay within the jurisdiction of the lower Court, subject to when the Appeallnt shall provide the sum of $137,166.38 (One Hundred and Thirty-Seven Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty-Six Dollars, Thirty-Eight Cent) being the cost of shipping of spares, provisions and logistics for the 1st Appellant crew members, and this was granted by the lower court, subject to the provisions of a Bank Guarantee to secure the Respondents’ Claim.

The Appellant in reaction to this via a Motion on Notice, sought for an unconditional discharge of the warrant of arrest against the 1st Appellant on the grounds that: the Respondent’s claims arose from a simple contract for debt recovery and not an admiralty claim in rem; that the beneficial owners of the 1st Appellant vessel were a different party; that the condition precedent the filing of an affidavit as provided by Order 7 Rule 3 and 6 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Procedure Rules, 2011 were not complied with; and that the Respondent did not serve the originating court process on the 2nd Appellant, which robbed the lower Court of jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Appellant further contended that the writ of summons and statement of claim filed by the Respondent’s Counsel were incompetent, on the ground that the Respondent’s Counsel had no evidence of payment of his current practicing fees and NBA Stamp and Seal, as at the time he filed the writ of summons and statement of claim, contrary to the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners.

The trial Judge of the lower Court, I.N. Oweibo, J., observed that the the Respondent’s Counsel had affixed his NBA stamp and seal on the writ of summons, and noted that the Respondent’s Counsel produced his receipt dated 2/9/2020, issued for payment of his practicing fees, and thus went on to dismiss the suit against the Appellants.

The Appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the lower court, appealed to the Court of Appeal.