RULING. On 11th day of April 2018, a ruling was delivered by this Court on the issue raised by the Court suo motu, in respect of whether this Court can hear and determine motion for stay of proceeding when appeal had been entered before the Court of Appeal. However, immediately after the delivery of that ruling Mu’awiya Yunusa, Esq; Counsel for the 2nd Defendant stood to move his application to regularise his position before the Court. The motion on notice for extension of time was moved by the Counsel for the 2nd Defendant and same was granted for having not been opposed by the Counsel for the Claimant and Counsel for the 1st Defendant respectively. Upon grant of the motion on notice, E. S. Oluwabiyi, Esq; raised objection to continuance of the proceedings in the matter. Counsel submitted that as from the moment of making his submissions he will no longer participate in the proceedings of this Court, since the appeal they filed against the ruling of this Court had been entered at the Court of Appeal. Counsel also submitted that his withdrawal from the proceedings is predicated on issue of fair hearing and principle of stare decisis. Uche Nwaogu, Esq; Counsel for the Claimant in his reaction submitted that as at today there is no application for stay filed anywhere. Counsel also submitted that it is within the right of the Counsel to participate or not to participate in the proceedings of this Court, he cannot be coerced. Counsel continued his submission that as long as there is no stay anywhere, filing of an appeal cannot amount to stay of proceedings of this Court. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the request of Counsel and allowed this matter to proceed to hearing on the merit. Mu’awiya Yunus, Esq; Counsel for the 2nd Defendant in his reaction submitted that the choice is for the 1st Defendant to choose whether to participate or not to participate in the proceedings of this Court. COURT’S DECISION The objection of Counsel for the 1st Defendant to continue to participate in the proceeding of the Court was predicated on the decision of this Court not to entertain motion for stay of proceeding, on the ground that with the entry of appeal at the Court of Appeal, this Court no longer possess jurisdiction to entertain application regarding the appeal pending before the Court of Appeal since the Court of appeal has become dominus litus in respect of the appeal. For the Claimant’s Counsel the 1st Defendant should not be compelled to continue to participate in the proceedings of the Court. For the 2nd Defendant Counsel it is a matter of choice for the 1st Defendant to make. It is trite law as pointed out by the Counsel for the Claimant that an appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings. Where there is an appeal proceedings in the trial Court can only stop, when there is an application for stay and an order of Court to that effect. This proposition of law is true for appeal that is yet to be entered before the Court of Appeal. However, once an appeal has been entered the equation changes. See Order 4 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules. In my hasty research on the issue at hand I am able to lay my hand on two cases that are of assistance to the determination of the issue at hand the cases are. NGIGE V ACHUKWU (2004) 8 NWLR (Pt.875) 383 and MOHAMMED HUSSEINI (1998) 14 NWLR (Pt584) 108. It is apparent from the two decisions that between the time an appeal is filed at the trial court, but before the record of appeal is transmitted to the court of appeal, the trial court can entertain such interlocutory applications like stay of execution and injunction pending appeal. But, cannot in effect re-open the case. When the record of appeal is transmitted to the Court of Appeal whereby it is seized of the matter, the trial Court lacks every jurisdiction to take any proceedings interlocutory or otherwise. This is because the Court of appeal is in charge. See Order 4 Rule 11 Court of Appeal Rules. It is without any doubt that from the above quoted decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, once it has been shown that an appeal has been entered at the Court of Appeal, this Court ceased to have jurisdiction. In view of my finding above this case is hereby adjourned sine die. Sanusi Kado, Judge.