Facts:

Sometimes in 2008 the appellant as the apex capital market regulator in Nigeria conducted an investigation on the 1st respondent, a public listed company and its directors. The investigation revealed several infractions of the Investments and Securities Act 2007 (ISA) such as inadequate internal control systems and a breakdown of corporate governance in the company. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 (v) of the ISA 2007, the appellant in 2010 approached the lower court seeking a number of reliefs against 1st respondent, three of its directors (2nd – 4th respondents), and two entities owned by them (5th and 6th respondents) with a view to preserving the assets of the 1st respondent. In the course of the proceedings, the appellant applied for and was granted an ex-parte order of interim injunction by the lower court restraining the 2nd – 6th respondents, their agents, servants or privies from obstructing the appellant in the exercise of its statutory oversight responsibilities to the 1st respondent including the appointment of an interim management to take charge of the day to day administration of the 1st respondent with a view to preserving its assets in the interest of its stakeholders pending the determination of the Motion on Notice already filed in the suit.
However, the ex-parte order was subsequently vacated by the lower court on the grounds that the 1st respondent “was not a capital market operator amenable to the control and management of the appellant in times of financial distress”. Dissatisfied with the decision of the lower Court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to determine a sole issue; “whether the lower court was right when it held that the 1st respondent is not a capital market operator because it does not play any specific role in the capital market and as such, not registrable or subject to the control of the appellant”.