Facts:

The 1st appellant and the respondent were married to each other and registered a business name in which both of them were proprietors. The object of the partnership was to set up academic institutions and in furtherance of this objective, the couple founded Kinsey Academy and Kinsey College of Education, both located in Ilorin, Kwara State. The business was registered in the true names of the couple and the trade name was an amalgam of the surname of the 1st appellant and the maiden name of the respondent. The respondent was the proprietress of the schools and a signatory to the business bank accounts. The relationship between the couple became strained and the 1st appellant took steps to alienate the respondent from the running of the schools and from participating in sharing of the proceeds of the business. Furthermore, the 1st appellant took direct control of the schools and all the business activities of the partnership.
The respondent was aggrieved and in April, 2014 filed a suit against the appellants at the Federal High Court, Ilorin Division. The suit prayed the court for several reliefs. One of the reliefs was a declaration that the respondent is a co-owner of the two schools and that the 1st appellant had no right to appropriate same for himself alone. The respondent also sought a declaration that she was entitled to 50% of the assets of the schools and that the unilateral takeover of the school by the 1st appellant was illegal null and void. Furthermore, she sought a mandatory order of the court to compel the appellants, their agents, servants and employees to render proper account of the financial affairs of the schools from the 1st day of January, 2011 to date and that the partnership be dissolved and all the assets liquidated and shared equally between the 1st appellant and the respondent. General damages of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) and an order of perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from continuing to run and administer the schools were also sought.
The matter went to trial and at the end of proceedings, the court gave judgment in favour of the respondent granting all the reliefs sought save an order to restrain the appellants from further running and administration of the schools. The appellants were dissatisfied with the decision and consequently filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Ilorin Division. After hearing the parties on the appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed it and held that the trial court was right in granting the reliefs sought by the respondent. Further dissatisfied, the appellants filed a notice of appeal at the Supreme Court asking it overrule the trial court and the Court of Appeal. One of the issues for determination is whether the existence of partnership could be inferred between the 1st appellant and the respondent in line with the requirements laid down by law.