Facts:

On the 11th of July, 2000, the respondents brought a notice of preliminary objection before the High Court seeking an order of the court to strike out the suit on the ground of incompetence. Arguing the preliminary objection, the respondents/appellants submitted that leave of court is essential and directions need to be given by the court regarding how the 3rd plaintiff will carry out the receivership of a part only of the assets of the 2nd plaintiff. 

The trial court upheld the objection and struck out the action for incompetence especially as the 1st and 3rd appellants instituted the action in the name of the 2ndappellant’s company without leave of court. 

The 1st appellant was dissatisfied with the ruling of the court below and appealed to the Court of Appeal. Learned counsel for the 1st appellant filed an amended brief of argument which raised only one issue for determination as follows: