Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Representation:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">N. C. Ohakwe with U. C. Njemanze for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Egwugagu (Mrs.) Deputy Director Civil Litigation, with her, N. I. Marume Principal State Counsel Imo State Ministry of Justice for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:8.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">RULING<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Judgment Debtors/Applicants on 17/02/2016 filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 30 Rules (1) & (2) of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, and sought among others, an order staying the execution of the judgment of this court delivered on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of January, 2016 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The grounds for this application are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The execution of the judgment of the trial court will paralyse the exercise of the constitutional right of appeal by the judgment debtors/Applicants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The execution of the judgment of the trial court will destroy the subject matter of the appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The execution of the judgment of the trial court will create hardship on the judgment debtors/applicants and foist a situation of complete hopelessness in the event that the appeal succeeds.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The appeal raises substantial, recondite and arguable issues of law.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">This application was supported by a 12 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Bruno Nwachukwu a litigation officer in the Imo State Ministry of Justice. In the accompanying written address, counsel raised one issue for determination as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether the applicants are entitled to a grant of an order staying the execution of the judgment in this suit pending the hearing and determination of the appeal already filed.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Counsel argued that the court has the discretion, which ought to be exercised judicially and judiciously to grant or refuse the sort of order in this application. It is the further argument of counsel that the principles guiding the court’s discretion in this instance are as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">i.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Where there is a substantial issue of law in an area that is somewhat recondite as may <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">be gleaned from the proposed notice and grounds for appeal. See <b>NITEL vs. MAFIA OIL LTD (2009) 5-6 SC (Pt. 11) 191 at 202</b> and <b>ODEDEYI vs. ODEDEYI (2000) 2 SC 93.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">ii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Where the judgment of the lower court is wrong or perverse<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">iii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Where the res cannot be preserved as to render any consequential order on appeal <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.25in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.25in;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">nugatory. See <b>DOMA vs. OGIRI (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 561) 193.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.75in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">iv.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Special or exceptional circumstances<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Furthermore, counsel submitted that the proposed Notice of Appeal in the instant case discloses substantial grounds of appeal and a constitutional issue of law. See <b>VASWANI vs. SAVALAKH (1972) 12 SC 77</b>. Counsel referred to the case of <b>NNPC vs. O.E. NIG LTD (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1090) 583</b> and submitted that the court has the obligation to keep in mind when faced with an application of this nature certain principles. These principles include the existence of a pending appeal valid in law that is competent and arguable on its merits. It is the submission of counsel that the Applicants have fulfilled all the conditions necessary for the court to exercise his jurisdiction and grant a stay. Counsel urged the court to grant this application in the interest of justice.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In opposition, the Judgment Creditors/Respondents on 26<sup>th</sup> February 2016 filed a counter affidavit of 12 paragraphs deposed to by one Kalu Uduma, a Counsel in the Judgment Creditors/Respondents Counsel’s Law office. In the supporting written address, counsel identified an issue for determination, thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Whether having regard to the circumstances of this case and the law, it is proper for this Honourable Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Defendants/Judgment Debtors/Applicants. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel submitted that the law is settled on the principle that where no valid appeal is filed, an application for stay of execution is incompetent. See <b>MOBIL OIL NIG LTD vs. AGADAIGHO (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 77) 383</b>. Counsel submitted further that by reason of Section 243(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) a party aggrieved with the decision of the National Industrial Court may appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal where his appeal borders on a fundamental right question contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution as it relates to a matter this court has jurisdiction over as per Section 254 of the Constitution. See <b>SHERATON HOTELS AND TOWERS LAGOS vs. HPSSSA (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1426) 45 at 65</b>. It is the argument of counsel that in the instant case, the Applicants annexed a proposed Notice of appeal and not a duly filed Notice of appeal as Exhibit B. Thus, it is apparent that no valid notice of appeal has been filed. Again, counsel contended that Exhibit B’s proposed grounds of appeal is not on questions of fundamental rights. In view of the above, counsel is of the opinion that the Applicants cannot file a valid appeal except by leave of this court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel argued that the discretion of the court to grant a stay of execution takes into account the competing rights of the parties to justice. That is, the court will not deprive a successful litigant the fruits of his judgment at the instance of the unsuccessful one unless there is strong reason making it probable that the judgment is certain to be set aside on appeal. In this regard, counsel argued further that the equity of the case and conduct of the Applicant are relevant considerations for the trial court before making any order. See <b>FATOYINBO vs. OSADEYI (2002) 11 NWLR (Pt. 778) 384</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is counsel’s contention that the Applicants’ proposed grounds of appeal are not supported by the records of this court and are frivolous and a ploy to deprive the Judgment Creditors from enjoying their judgment. Counsel cited the case of <b>FASEL SERVICES LTD vs. NPA (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt 723) 35 at 41</b> where it was held that where the res is money, the applicant for a grant of stay of execution must furnish the court with its statement of account to assist the court in exercising its discretion. See also <b>ISE OLUWA NIG LTD vs. NIG. DIST. LTD (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 709) 427 at 435-36</b>. The applicant must also come with clean hands by making full and frank disclosures. See <b>CHUKWU vs. ONYIA (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 130) 80 at 84-5</b>. It is counsel’s opinion that the Applicants in the present case failed to make a full and frank disclosure of their income, assets, interests and properties. They have not placed any material to aid the court in exercising its discretion in their favour. Counsel contended the judgment of the court is valid and subsisting; the Applicants in this instance have not adduced a strong probable case in their affidavit or proposed notice of appeal by providing substantial points of law. They only averred that paying the judgment debt will prevent them from exercising their right to appeal, which by itself does not evince a special circumstance or sufficient materials to show the facts about their income and assets. Thus, the court in the circumstance cannot exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. See <b>ABDULKADIRI vs. ALI (1999) 1 NWLR (Pt. 588) 613 </b>and<b> NWANOSIKE vs. UDOSEN (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 290) 684</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Counsel urged the Court, based on the foregoing, to hold that the Applicants have not shown any exceptional circumstance existing in this application to warrant the exercise of the Court’s discretion to order a stay of execution. He urged the court to dismiss the application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Judgment Debtors/Applicants filed a further affidavit of 7 paragraphs accompanied by a Reply on points of Law on 27<sup>th</sup> May 2016. Counsel submitted in his Reply that the Respondents Counsel’s submission that the Applicants have no valid Notice of Appeal is incompetent. This is owing to the fact that the Applicants’ application for leave to appeal pending at the Owerri Division of the Court of Appeal is an appeal within the contemplation of Section 30 of the Court of Appeal Act. See Exhibit C annexed to the further affidavit and the case of <b>NGERE vs. OKURUKET XIV (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1417) 147 at 175</b> where it was held that an application for leave to appeal is an appeal. Also, counsel contended that the competence of the Applicants’ leave to appeal at the Court of Appeal is beyond the jurisdiction of this court. See <b>AKINNAWO vs. ORUTUSIN (2014) NWLR (Pt. 1431) 435</b> <b>at 448</b>. Counsel stated that it is trite law that where an application is pending before a higher court as in the present case, it is better for the lower court to await the outcome. See <b>NALSA & TEAM ASSOCIATES vs. NNPC (1996) 3 NWLR 621 at 632</b>. Counsel urged the court to grant this application because there is a pending appeal with arguable grounds of appeal.<a name="_GoBack"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt 2in; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Court’s Decision<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The applicants have brought this application for stay of execution of the judgment of this court delivered on 16<sup>th</sup> January 2016. The object of the judgment which the applicants sought to be stayed is the sum of N190,305,199.64 awarded to the respondents. The issue, which in my view, arises for determination in this application is whether the applicants have shown any special circumstance to warrant this court to stay execution of the judgment? <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Although, stay of execution of judgment is a matter for the discretion of the court, the courts usually take into account the competing rights of the parties to justice in the exercise of that discretion. It is a well settled principle that courts of law do not make the practice of depriving a successful litigant of the fruit of his litigation and thereby locking up the funds to which he is, prima facie, entitled pending the determination of an appeal filed against the judgment. See <b>VASWANI TRADING CO. LTD. vs. SAVALAKH & ORS. (1972) 12 SC. 77</b>; <b>SPECIALIST CONSULT vs. RIVERS STATE GOVERNMENT (2002) FWLR (Pt. 91) 1478 at 1491. </b>It is also well settled that in an application for stay of execution, the court has a duty to ensure that the successful litigant reaps the fruit of his successes while an applicant seeking to deprive a successful litigant of the fruit of his labour must show substantial reasons why the court must grant him such indulgence. See <b>OKAFOR vs. ONAIFE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 134) 604 at 614</b>; <b>GOVERNOR, OYO STATE vs. AKINYEMI (2002) FWLR (Pt. 120) 1761 at 1772. </b>Thus, an unsuccessful litigant applying for a stay of execution must show "special circumstances" or "exceptional circumstances" before the discretion of the court can be exercised in his favour. A stay of execution is granted only and only if, the court is satisfied that there are special or exceptional circumstances to warrant doing so. It has been held that what will constitute “special" or "exceptional" circumstances will include where execution would-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(a) Destroy the subject matter of the proceedings;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(b) Foist upon the court a situation of complete helplessness; or<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(c) Render nugatory any order or orders of the appeal court;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(d) Paralyze in one way or the other, the exercise by the litigant of his Constitutional right of appeal; or<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">(e) Provide a situation in which even if the appellant succeeds in his appeal, there could be no return to the status quo. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">These facts must be deposed in the affidavit in support of the application. See <b>VASWANI TRADING COMPANY vs. SAVALAKH & COMPANY</b> (supra) at 82; <b>OKAFOR vs. ONAIFE (supra) at 614</b>; <b>OLUNLOYO vs. ADENIRAN (2001) 7 S.C. (Pt. III) 80. <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">In this case, the whole reasons given in the applicants affidavit for seeking stay of execution of the judgment are as deposed in the following paragraphs of the affidavit in support of the motion:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">7. That being dissatisfied with the said judgment, the defendants/appellants/applicants have now appealed against same to the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division. A copy of the proposed notice of appeals and grounds of appeal is annexed herein and marked as Exhibit B.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">8. That I am informed by the Solicitor-General, A.N. Eluwa (Mrs) and I verily believe her that the appeal raises serious constitutional and recondite issues of law.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">9. That pursuant to paragraphs 7 and 8 above, there is need to stay execution of the judgment of this honourable court to enable the defendants/appellants/applicants to exercise their constitutional right of appeal.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">10. That refusing the application for stay will cause great harm, irreparable damages and occassion a miscarriage of justice against the defendants/appellants/applicants herein.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The respondents/judgment creditors have however, in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, disputed the above depositions of the applicants. The respondents deposed further that the applicants have not appealed against the judgment of this court as no leave has been sought and obtained to appeal. The proposed notice of appeal does not raise substantial or arguable issues of law. It was further averred by the respondents that the applicants refused to pay the judgment sum, even though they have the means to pay, just to deny the respondents the enjoyment of the fruits of their judgment. The applicants have not made a full and frank disclosure of their assets.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">As seen in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of the applicants’ affidavit, the main reason, and in fact the only reason adduced by the applicants in their affidavit, for seeking stay of execution of the judgment is that they have appealed against the judgment. They annexed the proposed Notice of Appeal as Exhibit B and in their further affidavit, a motion for leave to appeal filed in the Court of Appeal, Owerri Division was annexed as Exhibit C. I quite agree with the applicants counsel in his Reply on points of law that an application for leave to appeal is deemed to be an appeal. See Section 30 of the Court of Appeal Act. See also <b>NGERE vs. OKURUKET XIV (2014) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1417) 147 at 175.</b> Although filing of appeal is a condition for the consideration of an application of stay of execution, merely filing an appeal is not itself a sufficient factor or special circumstance to order stay of execution. This view was expressed in <b>IKERE LOCAL GOVERNMENT vs. ADELUSI (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 404) 1534 at 1548</b>. Therefore, the fact that the applicants have filed an appeal is not a special circumstance upon which their application for stay of execution can be granted.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">It is deposed in paragraph 8 of the supporting affidavit that the applicants’ appeal raises a serious constitutional and recondite issues of law. The applicant’s Counsel then argued that the principles for grant of stay include the existence of a pending appeal which raises constitutional and recondite issues of law. Counsel submitted that the applicants have shown this condition as to be entitled to the relief sought in the application. With respect to the applicant’s counsel, he appears to have avoided the correct principle of law. The notice of appeal merely disclosing constitutional and recondite issues is also not a sufficient factor for the grant of stay of execution. The applicants are expected to go further to show that the appeal has a chance of success before his application can succeed. If the possibility of success is not shown, then the application will be refused. See <b>OGUNTIFA vs. UBA PLC (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 371) 1711 at 1717. </b>The depositions in the applicants’ affidavit did not contain any such fact to the effect that the appeal is likely to succeed. Therefore, in this application, the grounds of appeal cannot constitute special circumstance to warrant a grant a stay of execution. In<b><i> </i>FATOYINBO vs. OSADEYI (2002) FWLR (Pt. 110) 1770</b> per Kalgo JSC at page 1778 commented thus-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">“But where, as in this case, it is not demonstrated that the appeal involves substantial points of law necessitating matters to be kept in status quo until the appeal is determined, stay of execution will not be granted. For similar reasons a judgment creditor ought not to be deprived of the right to enjoy the fruit of his success unless there is strong reason making it probable that the judgment is certain to be set aside on appeal. This does not appear to me to be the case here”.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The judgment sought to be stayed by the applicants involves payment of money. It is trite that where judgment is in respect of money, as in this case, the factors the court will consider in an application for stay of execution are-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">i. Whether making the applicant to satisfy the judgment will make his financial position such that he could not prosecute the appeal,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">ii. Whether it would be difficult to secure the refund of the judgment debt from the respondent if the appeal succeeds. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">See <b>DEDUWA vs. OKORODUDU (1974) All NLR 672; OGUNTIFA vs. UBA (SUPRA) at 1717; SHESHE vs. IBRAHIM (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 655) 328 at 330 RATIO 3; IKERE LOCAL GOVERNMENT vs. ADELUSI (SUPRA) at 1546</b>; <b>GOVERNOR, OYO STATE vs. AKINYEMI (SUPRA) at 1772.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">The applicants did not aver any of these factors as the reason for applying for stay of execution in their affidavit. That is to say the applicants are is not contending that they cannot prosecute the appeal if made to pay the judgment sum nor did they say that the respondents cannot refund the money if the appeal is eventually determined in their favour. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Having considered the entire substance of the application, I find that the applicants have not satisfied the requirements of law for stay of execution. The applicants have not sought stay of execution on the ground that execution of the judgment will render the outcome of appeal nugatory or foist upon court of appeal a situation of complete helplessness or destroy the subject matter of the appeal or paralyse the exercise of their right of appeal or that the respondents cannot refund the sum if their appeal succeeds. They only averred that their appeal raises constitutional issue and that stay of execution be granted so that they can exercise their right of appeal. These factors do not constitute special circumstance or sufficient materials to grant stay of execution. Thus, the court in the circumstance cannot exercise its discretion in favour of the applicants. The application is refused and hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p>