Facts:

The respondent entered into a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) with the appellants wherein the appellants agreed to assign to the respondent 45% of their undivided participating interest in Oil Mining Lease 25 (OML 25) for the sum of $453,000,000 (Four Hundred and Fifty Three Million United States Dollars) subject to certain conditions. It was also stipulated that the agreement be governed by English Law and that disputes between the parties to be submitted to arbitration and conducted at the ICC Arbitration Centre in London, England. However, by a letter sent to the respondent, the appellants terminated the agreement on the 20th January, 2015. The respondent was aggrieved by the action taken by the appellants and consequently filed a suit at the Federal High Court, Lagos Division. The
respondent sought among several reliefs, a declaration that the termination of the SPA by the appellants is wrongful, null and void. Upon being served with the originating process, the appellant filed an application challenging the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the matter on the ground that the issue between the parties borders on simple contract and as such the court with requisite jurisdiction is the State High Court and not the Federal High Court.

After hearing the parties on the application of the appellants challenging its jurisdiction, the court gave its ruling in favour of the respondent dismissing the application. The appellants became aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division urging the court to reverse the trial court’s decision dismissing its application challenging the jurisdiction of the court. The sole issue adopted as being apt by the court, is whether the court was right in holding that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the respondent’s claim.