Facts:

The 2nd appellant entered into a contract with the 1st respondent for safe keeping of a Yamaha 212 Jet Stream Sports Boat belonging to the 1st appellant. The appellants alleged that the respondents breached the agreement by damaging the boat after converting it to their use. The appellants, after discovering that the boat had been converted and damaged by the respondents, sent several letters through their solicitors to the respondents demanding for the monetary value of the boat. The appellants were aggrieved that in spite of the letters of demand written to the respondents, they failed to accede to their demands. Consequently, the appellants filed a suit at the High Court of Lagos State against the respondents seeking damages for breach of contract and conversion. After being served with the originating process, the respondents filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction and competence of the court to hear and determine the matter. The objection was based on the allegation that the subject matter of dispute, the boat and the transaction between the parties, do not fall within the jurisdiction of the State High Court. The respondents contended that it is the Federal High Court that is vested with jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to a ship.

The appellants responded and contended that their claims are based on breach of contract, detinue and conversion which are issues within the jurisdiction of the State High Court and that there was no reason to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in the matter. After hearing the parties on the preliminary objection, the learned trial judge ruled in favour of the respondents and held that it is the Federal High Court that is vested with jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute between the parties which borders on admiralty. The appellants were dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial judge and consequently filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division. The sole issue for determination is whether considering the facts in the statement of claim and the reliefs sought, the lower court should not have assumed jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.