Facts:

In February 2008, the appellant entered into an agreement with the respondent wherein the latter advanced the sum of N200,000.000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) to the former. After the agreement was executed by the parties, the appellant sent a letter to the respondent asking it to liquidate the facility and requested that its 40, 000,000 (Forty Million) units of NEM shares be sold at a minimum of N6.00 (Six Naira) per share to repay the facility. In March 2008, the respondent wrote to the appellant requesting it to sell the shares by itself. The appellant responded to the letter by giving the respondent an option to apply for conversion of the facility under its Asset Backed Module. After several correspondence between the parties concerning the repayment of the facility, the parties finally entered into another agreement in which the facility was converted to a short term loan and a memorandum was drafted authorising the Central Securities Clearing Systems Limited to place a lien on the appellant’s NEM shares in favour of the respondent.
The respondent wrote to the appellant in September 2008, requesting for payment of the principal sum and the accrued interest of N27,000,000.00 (Twenty Seven Million Naira) and threatened to sell the shares if the appellant failed to repay the facility. Another letter was written by the respondent in December, 2008 to the appellant informing it of its intention to embark on partial sale of the shares in order to liquidate the interest portion of the facility. The appellant replied and suggested that the liquidation of the interest portion of the facility be done at a later date closer to the anniversary of the facility believed to be by end of April, 2009. There was no further communication between the parties until November, 2010 when the respondent’s solicitors sent a letter of demand to the appellant asking for payment of the debt and the accrued interest and threatening to commence legal proceedings against the appellant if it failed to repay the debt within 21 days of the demand. The appellant failed to repay the debt and the respondent made good its threat by filing a petition at the Federal High Court, Ikeja Division for the winding up of the appellant on the ground that it was unable to pay its debt.
The appellant filed a preliminary objection to the petition on the ground that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. The kernel of the objection was that the respondent failed to abide by the provisions of the law requiring the petitioner to personally make a demand for payment of the debt within 21 days. The appellant alleged that the respondent did not comply with the provisions of the law before filing the petition. The respondent opposed the application by filing a counter affidavit. After hearing the parties on the application, the court dismissed the objection and held that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. The appellant became aggrieved and filed a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division urging it overrule the trial court.
One of the issues for determination is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition of the respondent and whether the respondent complied with the provisions of the Companies and Allied Matters Act before filing the petition.