Facts:

The appellants entered into a finance agreement with the respondent in which the latter was to finance the importation of 7,000 metric tonnes of sugar belonging to the Nigerian Bottling Company. The total sum of the facility was N222,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Twenty Two Million Naira) and part of the conditions for the transaction was that the Nigerian Bottling Company will domicile all payments in respect of the consignment with the respondent including the letter of credit. The facility was for 90 (Ninety) days with 21% interest to be charged. In furtherance of the contract, the offshore account of the respondent was debited to fund the letter of credit for the importation. After the debit was effected, the 1st appellant sent an undertaking to the respondent indicating that the Nigerian Bottling Company would domicile payments to the respondent for the cost of the importation excluding provisions for payment of clearing charges and agreed interest. The facility was not fully repaid and through series of meetings and correspondence, the parties tried to resolve the dispute.
While they were in the process of negotiation, one of the letters was marked “without prejudice” and in it, the appellant admitted to being indebted to the respondent in the sum of N66,588,192.18 (Sixty Six Million, Five Hundred and Eighty Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety Two Naira, Eighteen Kobo). The appellants failed to pay the admitted sum and the respondent filed a claim against them at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division. After hearing the parties, the trial judge gave judgment in favour of the respondent in the admitted sum. The appellants became aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division urging the court to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. One of the grounds relied on by the appellant is that the court was wrong to have entered judgment in the admitted sum by relying on a letter purported to have contained the admission. The appellant contended that the letter was inadmissible because it was marked “without prejudice”. The appellants also raised a preliminary objection alleging that the writ of summons and statement of claim were fundamentally defective and incompetent because they were signed in the name of a law firm and not a legal practitioner.