RULING. 1. The Judgment Debtors/Applicants filed a Motion on Notice dated and filed on the 13th day of May, 2019. The application was brought pursuant to Order 17 Rules 2 (3) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Court praying the Honourable Court for; 1. AN ORDER setting aside the Order of this Honourable Court made on the 10th day of May, 2019 granting leave to the judgment Creditor/Respondent to execute the judgment of this Court delivered on the 12th day of February 2019 pending the hearing and determination of the Motion for Stay of Execution of the judgment pending at the Court of Appeal. 2. AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDER(S) as the Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case. 2. The Motion on Notice was supported by a 12 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by one Dr. Christopher Godwin E. Ihionkhan, the Acting Registrar of the 3rd Judgment Debtor/Applicant. In the affidavit it was stated that the applicants are aware that an order was made by this court on 10/5/19, wherein leave was granted to the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment of this court delivered on 4/10/2018. The applicants have applied for a copy of the order. It was also stated that there is currently pending appeal on the judgment of this court with appeal no. CA/A/1102/2018 given to the said appeal when it was entered on the 6/12/2018. A copy of the notice of appeal was attached as exhibit AP1. It was further stated that the applicants have filed motion for stay of execution of the judgment of this court delivered on 4/10/2018. The application for stay is pending at the Court of Appeal it is exhibit as exhibit AP2. There is need to grant this application to set aside the order granting leave for execution. The Judgment Creditor/Respondent will not be prejudiced. A written address was also filed along with the application, counsel placed reliance on all the depositions contained in the affidavit n support and adopts the written address as his argument. Counsel formulated sole issue for resolution to wit:- ‘’Whether in the face of the existing appeal and a Motion for stay of Execution of the said Judgment delivered on 12th February, 2019, this Court ought not to set aside the Order made on the 10th day of May 2019 pending the hearing and determination of the Motion of Stay of Execution of the said Judgment pending at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division.’’ 3. S. O. Umo, Esq; counsel for the Judgment Debtors/Applicants in arguing the sole issue for determination contended that the Applicant has established and met the conditions for the grant of the above application. Counsel relied on the principle laid out in EWEKA V OBANOR & ANOR (2000) LPELR-9804 (CA) PER GEORGE OLADEINDE SHOREMI, JCA (Pp.6-7 paras F-E) where the Court held; “To grant an application to set aside a judgment, the following must be considered. (a) Whether there had been undue delay in making application to set aside the judgment as to prejudice the party in whose favour of the judgment subsists (b)whether the successful party would be prejudiced or embarked upon all order of retrial being made as to render such a course inequitable.(c) Whether the applicant’s case is manifestly unsupportable. (d) The conduct of the appellant throughout the proceedings. See ODOFIN V OLABAYI (1996)3NWLR PT435,126, WILLIAMS & ORS V HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FUNDS SOCIETY (1981)1-2 SC145, MOHAMMED V USENI (1998) 14 NWLR (PT.584) 108 MOMO V GULF INSURANCE CORPORATION (1975) NMLR184." 4. Counsel argued that by paragraphs 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Affidavit in support of the present application, the applicants have met the condition precedent for the grant of the application. Counsel further argued that it is the law that once an Appeal has been entered at the Court of Appeal, the Court is seized of the whole entire proceedings as between the parties, counsel relied on ORDER 4 RULE 11 OF THE COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2016. 5. Applicant’s counsel further relied on the case of SENATOR AMANGE V PDP & 2ORS (2012) NSCQR 22 @ PG 63 particularly page 88-89 where Justice I.T Mohammed held thus: “on the other hand, where the record of Appeal has been transmitted, to this Court, and entered, it is at this point in time when the Court below will cease to have jurisdiction to hear the matter…..this is because once this court is seized of the appeal, it has the sole jurisdiction to deal with the matter, interlocutory or otherwise”. 6. Counsel for the applicants further relied on the recent case of T.S.A INDUSTRIES NIG LTD V FIRST BANK (2018) LPELR-43562 (CA) to further establish the principle that after an appeal has been entered and until it has finally been disposed of the court shall be seized of the whole of the proceedings as between the parties thereto. 7. Counsel urged the Court to set aside the Order made by the Honourable Court on the 10th day of May, 2019 on the following grounds; I. An Appeal has been duly entered in this matter at the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division with Appeal number CA/A/1102/2019 given II. The applicants have a pending motion for stay of execution at the Court of Appeal, see EXHIBIT AP2 III. The defendants’ appeal will be rendered nugatory in the likely event it succeeds. IV. The Appeal having been entered and records transmitted to the Court of Appeal, this Court cease to have jurisdiction over the matter. 8. In reaction, the counsel to the Judgment Creditor/Respondent filed a 12 paragraphs counter affidavit filed on 20/05/2019, the said counter affidavit was deposed to by Mr. Christopher Dele Ebiaku, the Judgment Creditor/Respondent in the present suit. The counter affidavit was supported by the written address. Counsel to the Judgment Creditor/Respondent adopted the written address as his argument in support of the counter affidavit. Counsel raised a sole issue for determination by the Court to wit; ‘’WHETHER THE FACT THAT AN APPEAL HAS BEEN ENTERED AND A MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION HAS BEEN FILED WHEN THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE A WRIT OF EXECUTION TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE JUDGMENT CREDITOR IS PENDING HAS AFFECTED THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO GRANT SAME AND HAS THEREBY AFFECTED THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER.’’ 9. D. A. Alegbe, Esq; counsel for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent in arguing the sole issue raised, submitted that by Section 10 of the National Industrial Court Act, the Honourable Court has undoubted jurisdiction to enforce its judgment. Counsel reproduced the provision of section 47 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 that states that an Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the Court shall not operate as a stay of execution. Counsel submitted that the leave to enforce the judgment of the Honourable Court was granted on 10/05/2019 in the absence of the service of the motion for stay of execution on the Judgment Creditor and which was not brought to the attention of the Court. Counsel relied on INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR WEST AFRICA LIMITED & ANOR V PAVEX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY NIG. LTD (2000) LPELR-1523 (SC). 10. Counsel further argued that in light of the authorities sighted, this is not the proper case to set aside the leave granted to the Judgment Creditor/ Respondent, he stated that the only remedy is that the court can only withhold issuing the writ of execution as provided in ORDER 49 RULE 7 (1) AND (2) of the Rules of the Honourable Court. Counsel urged the Court to refuse the Judgment debtor/ Applicant’s application. 11. The Judgment Debtors/Applicants’ counsel filed an 11 paragraph further Affidavit dated and filed on the 20/05/2019 and deposed to by Dr. Godwin E. Ihionkhan, the Acting Registrar of the 3rd Judgment Debtor/Applicant. In the further affidavit it was stated that the Judgment Creditor/Respondent was aware of the pending Appeal against the order of this Court but failed and neglected to bring that fact to the attention of the Court. COURT’S DECISION. 12. I have perused the application by the judgment debtors seeking for an order setting aside the order of this court granting the leave to the judgment Creditor leave to enforce the judgment made in his favour. 13. The general position of the law is that a court cannot set aside its decision or a decision of a court of coordinate jurisdiction competently made. However, the court has inherent power to set aside its decision when same are later found to be a nullity, or obtained by fraud or mistakenly given under the impression of parties consent. The power does not extend to court sitting on appeal on its own decision. See IGWE V KALU (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt.787) 435, EDO STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY & ANOR V AGBEBAKU (2018) LPELR-45055(CA) . 14. In a plethora of decisions the apex court has decided that inherent power of court should not be used to review to enable court review its decision. See OBIOHA V IBERO& ANOR (1994) NWLR (Pt.322) 503, ALAO V ACB (2000) 9 NWLR (Prt.672 264.as it that a court cannot set aside its decision or decision of court of coordinate jurisdiction. However a court has inherent power to set aside its decision when same are found to be a nullity, obtained by fraud or mistakenly given under the impression of given under the parties consent. 15. It is settled law beyond dispute that a court is competent and possesses the inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own decision that is a nullity. This it can do, either on the application of a party or suo motu by the court itself. In DINGYADI v. INEC (2010) LPELR 952 (SC) at 35 paras D-E, the Supreme Court, PER MOHAMMED JSC, held: "The law regarding the position of any judgment or order of Court which is a nullity for any reason whatsoever, is that the Court in its inherent jurisdiction is entitled ex-debito justitiae to have that judgment or order set aside on the application of an affected party or even suo motu by the Court itself" See also MARK v. EKE (2004) 5 NWLR (PT. 865) 54; EKE v. OGBONDA (2006) 18 NWLR (Pt.1012) 506." Per OBASEKI-ADEJUMO, J.C.A. (Pp. 29-30, paras. F-C) 16. In the case of Okoye v. Nigeria Const. & Furniture Co. Ltd. (1991) 6 NWLR (Pt.199) 501 at 539, the Supreme Court, per Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC, vividly captured the caustic aftermath of nullity thus:- "When a thing is a nullity, it is as if the thing never existed. When a marriage is null and void it is as if the status of matrimony had never been conferred: See Vol. 12 Hals. Laws of England (3rd Edn) P.226. Similarly when a judgment or order is a nullity it is as if it was never given or made. It can be set aside without much ado". See, also Bello v. INEC (2010) 8 NWLR (Pt.1196) 342. 17. Besides, a null decision or proceeding savours of a hollow victory in the sense that it bestows no enforceable right on its beneficiary nor does it impose any obligation on the losing or victim party. The Supreme, Court had set a seal on this principle, see Ajiboye V. Ishola (2006) 13 NWLR (CP.998) 628; Oyeneyin V. Akinkugbe (2010) 4 NWLR (Pt.1184) 265."Per OGBUINYA, J.C.A.(Pp. 82-83,paras. F- 18. In the case at hand the reason given by the Judgment Debtor why this application is being made is that appeal has been entered and there is an application for stay of proceeding pending before the Court of Appeal. By law an appeal or application for stay of execution/proceeding do not serve as stay until and unless there is a competent court order to that effect. 19. From the affidavit evidence as at the time the order granting leave to judgment creditor to enforce the judgment of the court was made, the attention of the court was not drawn to the pendency of the motion for stay nor was the court attention drawn to the entry of appeal at the court of appeal. Counsel submitted that by order 4 Rule 11v of the Court of Appeal once an appeal has been entered that is to say record of appeal has been transmitted and appeal number has been given the court of appeal will become seized of the matter. Consequently all application must be made to the Court of Appeal. 20. All I have been saying above is that the judgment debtor has not made out a case of setting aside of the order of the court as doing that may occasion hardship on the judgment creditor. 21. In view of the foregoing this case is hereby adjourned sane die pending the outcome of application for stay of execution pending before the court of appeal. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: V.O. Edegbini, Esq; for the Judgment creditor/respondent Salan Y. Dako, Esq; for the judgment debtor.