Facts:

Facts:
The 1st appellant was a customer of the defunct Trade Bank Plc which gave
certain facilities to the 1st appellant secured by a deed of legal mortgage. The 1st
appellant alleged that the defunct bank failed to administer the facilities properly
and consequently, initiated an action against it at the High Court of Lagos State
seeking inter alia, a declaration that the defunct Trade Bank Plc was not entitled
to enforce its rights of sale under the legal mortgage after the 1st appellant defaulted in repayment of the facilities.
The matter was still pending in court when the respondent was appointed as the
liquidator of the defunct bank which was already in distress. Thus, the respondent
was substituted in the action against the 1st appellant. With the leave of court, the
respondent amended the existing statement of defence and incorporated a
counterclaim which for the first time brought the 2nd appellant into the matter. The
appellants responded to the counterclaim of the respondent by filing a defence
and a counter claim. After being served with the defence of the appellants and
the counterclaim, the respondent filed an application urging the court to dismiss
the counterclaim of the appellants for being statute barred on the ground that the
cause of action upon which the counterclaim of the appellants was predicated
arose in 1997 and 1998 and therefore could not be litigated in 2009. On the 30th
of September, 2014 the lower court delivered its ruling on the application of the
respondent and dismissed the counterclaim of the appellants. The appellants
were dissatisfied with the court’s ruling and filed a notice of appeal at the Court
of Appeal, Lagos Division. However, the respondent filed its brief of argument
alongside a preliminary objection to the appeal on the ground that some of the
grounds of appeal were incompetent being grounds of mixed law and fact which
require leave of court not sought and obtained by the appellant before filing
them. The appellants filed a counter affidavit challenging the preliminary objection
of the respondent.
One of the issues raised in the substantive appeal is whether the learned trial
judge was right when in determining the competence of the appellants’
counterclaim, the court rejected the argument of the appellants anchored on
section 3 of the Limitation Law of Lagos State and instead applied section 8 of
the said law.