Facts:

Facts:

Bharti Airtel International, the parent company of the respondent entered into an advertising contract with Ogilvy and Africa Limited (the principal of Prima Garnet Communications Limited). There was a disagreement between the parties which led to severance of the relationship. Prima Garnet Communication Limited, which was the agent carrying out the advertisement on behalf of Ogilvy and Africa Limited, apparently lost out due to the severance of relationship between the parties to the advertising contract. However, prior to the severance of relationship between the parties, Ogilvy and Africa Limited had sought to replace Prima Garnet Communication Limited with another agent in Nigeria to continue with the advertising contract. Prima Garnet Communication Limited was aggrieved and sued Ogilvy and Africa Limited in Suit No: LD/1898/2012: Garnet Communication Limited v. Ogilvy and Africa Limited.

Sensing that the frosty relationship between Bharti Airtel International and Ogilvy and Africa Limited may adversely affect its pending action in the above stated suit, Prima Garnet Communication Limited instituted another action in Suit No: LD/111/2013 in which it sought among several reliefs, a declaration to the effect that the business relationship between Bharti Airtel International and Ogilvy and Africa Limited should not be severed since the outcome might affect its pending action in Suit No: LD/1898/2012: Garnet Communication Limited v Ogilvy and Africa Limited.

In the course of proceedings in Suit No: LD/111/2013, the High Court of Lagos State made an order directing parties to maintain status quo. The respondent at this point sent its advertising materials to the appellant for vetting but the appellant declined to act on it on the premise that doing so would mean violating the orders of the court. Consequently, the respondent instituted an action at the Federal High Court for judicial review of the order and an order of mandamus to compel the appellant to perform its statutory duty. The court made an ex parte order restraining the appellant from refusing to vet and approve any advertising material of the respondent.

The appellant applied for a vacation of the ex parte order but, the Federal High Court in its ruling delivered on the 12th of July, 2013 refused to vacate the said order. The appellant became aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal Lagos Division. One of the issues raised for determination was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The appellant alleged that the action was an abuse of court process because the same matter was before another court and parties had been ordered to maintain status quo.

The respondent filed a preliminary objection challenging the competence of the appeal on the ground that the grounds of the appeal are grounds of mixed law and fact and as such the appellant ought to have sought leave before filing same.