Uche Nwaogu, Esq; Counsel for the Claimant in his submission contended that it is the right of the 1st Defendant to appeal. It is also his right to make any application in line with the Rules of this Court. It is only at the discretion of this Honourable Court which must be exercised judicially and judiciously considering circumstances of the matter, putting the interest of all the parties involved before making any decision. For Mu’awiya Yunusa, Esq; Counsel for the 2nd Defendant submitted that the Rules of this Court has made expensive provisions for stay even after appeal has been entered. According to Counsel there is no any complicit between Order 64 of the Rules of this Court and Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal. Order 4 deal with proceedings as between parties in the appeal this application is competent. COURT’S DECISION. I have listened to the submissions of Counsel for all the parties in respect of whether this Court can entertain an application for stay of proceeding when an appeal filed in respect of the ruling of this Court had been entered at the Court of Appeal. In order to resolve the issue under consideration, it is apt to consider the provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which provides, thus: ‘‘After an appeal has been entered and until it has been finally disposed of the Court shall be seized of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto, except as may be otherwise provided in these Rules, every application shall be made to the Court and not to the Court below, but any application may be filed in the Court below for transmission to the Court’’. The provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules reproduced above are very clear and unambiguous. The wording of the Rule is plain without any ambiguity. The words therein should be given their ordinary grammatical meaning. It is settled law that when provisions of statute or Rules of Court are clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty bound to apply literal rule of interpretation to construe the provisions under consideration without resort to any internal or external aid. In the instant case the words used in Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules, being devoid of any ambiguity will be given their simple ordinary meanings. See FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA V MAIWADA (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt.1348) 443, HONEYWELL FLOUR MILLS PLCV ECOBANK NIGERIA LTD 2016 16 NWLR PT.1539 387, ABUBAKAR V NASAMU 2012 17 NWLR PT.1330 523. Applying this principle of interpretation to the case at hand this Court has no choice than to interpret the words of the Rule as used and apply same accordingly. In view of the foregoing after an appeal had been entered, all applications are made to the Court of Appeal, albeit an application may be filed in this Court for transmission to the Court of Appeal. Once appeal has been entered this Court no longer has jurisdiction and competence to entertain any application brought in respect of the matter. See ESIRI V IDIKA (1987) 4 NWLR (PT.66) 503. With the clear provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal, this Court cannot assume jurisdiction to hear and determine motion for stay. To do that will amount to disrespect to the powers of the Court of Appeal. If such happens any order made will be without jurisdiction and will not be legitimate. In the case of COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATION AKWA IBOM STATE & ORS. V HARRIKIKO ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. (2013) LEPLR-21399 (CA), the Court of Appeal set aside an order made by the High Court after an appeal had been entered at the Court of Appeal. The High Court order was nullified because it was made without jurisdiction. The rational is once an appeal is entered the Court of Appeal has become fully seized of the matter. From thence forward, the Court of Appeal become dominus litis. It has full and complete dominion over all processes filed and ensuring proceedings to the exclusion of this court. In view of the foregoing, it is my humble view that this Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction in the face of the clear and unambiguous provisions of Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules to entertain the motion for stay of proceedings. I so hold. Sanusi Kado, Judge. Sanusi Kado, Judge.