Facts:

Sometime in 2008, the appellant invested in a fund created by the 1st and 2nd respondents known as Telecoms Private Equity Fund to which he also executed an investment agreement and believed that his investment will be converted to shares in the 3rd respondent Company.

The 1st respondent is an investment management company while the 2nd respondent is an asset management company, both registered and carrying on business in Nigeria. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent is a telecommunication service provider in Nigeria.

Three years after the investment by the appellant, a dispute arose based on the Telecoms Private Equity Fund agreement and the appellant who was aggrieved proceeded to institute an action by writ of summons against the respondents at the Federal High Court.

In response, the 1st respondent filed a Motion on Notice seeking to stay proceedings pending reference to and determination of the dispute by arbitration as contained in the agreement binding the parties. The 2nd respondent filed a Motion on Notice alongside its Statement of Defence seeking an order to strike out the suit for misjoinder and failure to disclose reasonable cause of action. The 3rd respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection seeking for an order dismissing and/or striking out the suit for reasons of incompetence and abuse of Court process. Also, the 4th and 5th respondents jointly filed a Notice of Preliminary objection seeking for an order dismissing and/or striking out the suit for failure to disclose reasonable cause of action and for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant filed Counter-Affidavits against all the Motions and Preliminary Objections. The 1st respondent then filed a Further-Affidavit while the 3rd respondent filed a Reply on Points of Law against the appellant.

After hearing all applications, the lower Court in its ruling granted the respondents prayer to the effect that the appellant’s suit cannot be heard until reference has been made to arbitration and exhausted as contained in the agreement which is a condition precedent to its exercise of jurisdiction.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the court below, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal