Facts:

The 1st appellant is a company engaged in the business of petroleum services. The 2nd appellant is an executive director of the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant had been awarded a contract for the supply of diesel to MTN sites located across the South-East and South-South zones of Nigeria. The 1st appellant was a customer of the defunct Midas Bank Plc (now the 1st respondent) and had initially approached the 1st respondent for a facility to execute the contract, but it was not granted. The 2nd respondent, a banking institution granted a facility to the 1st appellant running into the sum of N163,365,043.35 (One Hundred and Sixty Three Million, Three Hundred and Sixty Five Thousand, Forty Three Naira, Thirty Five Kobo). The facility was covered by a personal guarantee of the 2nd appellant.
The proceeds of the contract were paid into the 1st appellant’s account with the 1 st respondent. The appellants defaulted in repaying the facility and the 2nd respondent filed a suit, via summary judgment procedure, against the appellants at the High Court of Lagos to recover the said facility. After being served with the process, the appellants initiated a third party proceedings to join the 1st respondent on the ground that the 1st respondent was responsible for its indebtedness to the 2 nd respondent and as such be made to indemnify it. The appellants alleged that all the proceeds from the contract were paid into its account domiciled with the 1 st respondent and that it was as a result of the 1st respondent withholding the funds that it could not repay the facility. The 1st respondent however denied the allegation and stated that the appellants were indebted to it as a result of a facility earlier granted to it and that the proceeds of the contract paid into the appellant’s account by MTN were for the settlement of the appellant’s indebtedness.
At the pre-trial conference, an issue arose as to the correct amount of the appellant’s indebtedness to the 1st respondent. In order to resolve it, the parties agreed to submit the issue to an independent reviewer to determine the true state of balance of the appellant’s account with the 1st respondent between March, 2004 and March, 2005. The parties also agreed to be bound by the outcome. As a result of the agreement, an independent reviewer was appointed and after a thorough examination of the records, the reviewer reported that the appellant’s credit balance was in the sum of N18,471,940.57 (Eighteen Million, Four Hundred and Seventy One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Naira, Fifty Seven Kobo). The court entered judgment in favour of the appellants in the sum stated above and awarded interest thereon from the 31st March, 2005 to the 5th June, 2008 but dismissed the claim of the appellants to have the 1st respondent bear liability and to indemnify the appellants for the judgment obtained by the 2nd respondent against the appellants.
The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision of the court and consequently filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. One of the issues for determination is whether the trial court was correct in failing to find the 1st respondent liable to the appellants for the judgment entered in favour of the 2nd respondent against the appellants in accordance with the third party proced