Facts:

The appellants were customers of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent advanced several facilities to the appellants. These facilities were secured with landed properties belonging to the 2nd appellant. In 1987, there was a release arrangement between the parties in which the debts were settled and the properties were returned to the appellants. Within the same period that the properties were returned to the appellants, the 1st respondent advanced two facilities of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) and N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) to the appellants. These facilities were secured with the same properties earlier released to the appellants. Unknown to the 1st respondent, the 2nd appellant sold three plots of the land to the deceased husband of the 2nd respondent, who was substituted by the 2nd respondent at the High Court. The sale was done within the period the properties were released to the appellants and when the new facilities were advanced to the appellants. The land described as plot 1-3 was sold for N117,000.00 (One Hundred and Seventeen Thousand Naira) which was duly paid and the 2nd appellant had assured the 2nd respondent that the properties had been released and free from any encumbrance. The facilities were unpaid and on the 26th of June, 1996 the 1st respondent sent demand letters to the appellants requesting payment of the debt and accrued interest. The appellants refused to pay the debt on the ground that it was statute barred. In 2000, the appellants filed a suit at the High Court of Lagos State against the respondents.
The contentions of the appellants were that the sale to the 2nd respondent was forceful and should be declared void and that the debt owed the 1st respondent was statute barred and unenforceable. After being served with the originating process, the respondents filed their defence and incorporated counterclaims against the appellants. The matter went to trial and at the end of proceedings, the trial court dismissed the claims of the appellants and granted the counterclaims of the respondents. The court held that the 2nd respondent was entitled to the properties sold to him by the 2nd appellant since the transaction was carried out when the properties were released to the appellants and free from encumbrance, and purchase price duly paid for them.
The court further held that the debt was not statute barred and that the 1st respondent could enforce same against the appellants. The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division urging the court to reverse the trial court. One of the issues for determination is whether the trial court was right in rejecting the contention of the appellants that the claim arising out of the facilities granted by the 1st respondent to the appellant was statute barred.