Facts:

Facts:

The respondent filed a petition for winding up of the appellant at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division. The court, pursuant to the petition, granted the respondent’s application to advertise the petition on the 26th of October 2004 and adjourned hearing in the petition to the 26th of January, 2005. Subsequently, the matter was adjourned on several occasions with the consent of the parties on the ground that parties were exploring settlement.

On the 18th day of November, 2008 when the matter came up for hearing, an interested party informed the court that the appellant had settled its claim and that the court should discharge him from further appearance in the matter. Thereafter, the respondent moved its petition against the appellant who hitherto, did not file a reply but asked for adjournment in order to provide the court with more facts why the respondent’s petition should not be granted. The court did not grant the appellant’s request and went ahead to adjourn the matter for judgment. The court ruled in favour of the respondent granting an order winding up the appellant and appointing a provisional liquidator to manage the affairs of the appellant.

The appellant was dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision and therefore, filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division praying the court to set aside the decision of the trial court. One of the issues raised in the appeal is whether the learned trial judge was right to have proceeded to hear and grant the petition for winding up of the appellant in spite of the facts presented to it that the appellant had started paying off its creditors. However, the respondent upon being served with the processes, filed a notice of preliminary objection incorporated in its brief of argument challenging the competence of the appeal.