Download PDF
The Claimant filed his complaint on the 27th April, 2012 and dated same day. He is claiming for the sum of N5,000,000,000 (Five Billion Naira Only) as damages. This court on the 10th of October, 2013 delivered a ruling on two adversely competing applications. These applications were for: 1. Joinder of a party by the Claimant 2. Defendant’s preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of this court. After due consideration of all the processes filed by parties and their arguments, this Court ruled in favour of the Claimant and ordered that the 2nd defendant be joined for the effectual and effective determination of this suit. The 1st Defendant dissatisfied with the above ruling appealed at the Court of Appeal and filed this application praying for this proceedings to be stayed. The application for stay is dated 22/11/13 and filed same day. It is brought pursuant to order 11 Rule 1 and Order 30 Rules 1 and 2 of National Industrial Court Rule 2007. The application is seeking for an Order staying the proceedings in this suit pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The grounds for the applications are as follows: (i) This Honourable Court, Coram Honourable Justice O. O. Oyewumi delivered a ruling in this suit on 10 October, 2013. In the ruling, the Honourable Court refused to grant the 1st Defendant/Applicant’s (“Applicants”) Preliminary Objection dated 20 May 2013 and held that it had jurisdiction and was competent to entertain the Claimant’s suit. (ii) The 1st Defendant being dissatisfied with that decision exercised its Constitutional right of appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal dated 22 October 2013 within 14 days from the date of the delivery of the said ruling. (iii) The Notice of Appeal filed by the Applicant raises substantial, weighty and fundamental issues of law for the determination of the Court of Appeal. (iv) The outcome of the decision of the Court of Appeal if successful has the potential consequence of putting an end to the proceedings in this court. (v) In the event this Honourable Court refuses to stay proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the Applicant’s appeal and the instant proceedings proceed to completion, the appeal filed by the Applicant would be rendered nugatory thereby foisting a state of helplessness upon the Applicant and the Court of Appeal. (vi) It is in the interest of justice that further proceedings in this suit be stayed pending the hearing and determination of the appeal lodged by the Applicant. It supported was filed a 13 paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Joshua Abe a legal Practitioner at the Firm of Messrs Aluko & Oyebode, 2 Exhibits were attached, i.e. notice of appeal and notice of withdrawal dated 21st Nov, 2013 as Exhibits JA1 and JA2. Also filed was a written address. In the written address counsel to the defendant/applicants raised a sole issue for determination of the Court as follows: “Having regard to the grounds of appeal contained in the Applicants Notice of Appeal, whether or not this Honourable Court ought to stay further proceedings in this suit pending the hearing and determination of the appeal filed by the applicant against the decision made by this Honourable Court? Learned Counsel started his argument by submitting that a court of record has powers to grant a stay of its own proceeding pending the determination of an appeal which has been lodged against its own decision. He cited the case of Eze V. Okolonji (1997) NWLR (pt. 513) 515 at 527. Learned counsel further submitted that factors to be considered before granting or refusing an application for staying of proceeding is listed in Nika Fishing Co. Ltd. V. Lavina Corp (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1114) 509 at 540 – 542 paras B-D. Where the apex Court held that the Court should consider whether there is a valid right of action, valid pending appeal lodged against the decision, whether the pending appeal is arguable and there are chances of success, competing rights of the parties, whether hardship will be occasioned by the grant of stay, whether there is need to preserve the res and whether special circumstances warranting the grant of an application for stay of proceeding exist. Learned Counsel also cited the case of Okem Enterprise (Nig.) Ltd V. NDIC (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt 814) pg. 503 paras D-G and added that one other thing to consider is whether the order which will be made by the Court of Appeal will have the effect of disposing the proceedings at the trial Court. Learned counsel posited that the applicants has fulfilled the above conditions and thus concluded by praying the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant and stay further proceedings in this suit. Responding, Learned Counsel to the Claimant/respondent filed a Counter affidavit dated 27/11/13 and filed same day. The Affidavit is deposed to by one Adah John a Solicitor in the law firm of Festus Keyamo Chambers. Also attached are 4 exhibits viz; two medical reports issued by one Dr. C. Nwaneri of Opti Vue Eye Care Ltd dated 7/1/2013 and another from Dr. F.O. Oshoba of Ladkem Eye Hospital dated 20/5/2013 marked as Exhibits A and B, another doctors report and medical bill as Exhibits C and D. A written address was equally filed as arguments in support of the respondent's case. In his address, learned counsel to the Claimant/respondent also raised an issue for determination as follow: “Whether in the light of the facts and peculiar circumstances of this case, particularly the nature of the appeal which is interlocutory and the deteriorating health condition of the Claimant which fact remains unchallenged, the Honourable Court ought to stay proceedings in this matter”. Learned counsel to the Claimant started his argument by submitting that because of the unchallenged facts of this case regarding the health of the Claimant, this court should refuse the application for stay instead, order for an accelerated hearing, of the matter. Learned Counsel further submitted that the application for stay is an equitable relief and he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. He further submitted that for the applicant to seek for an equitable relief, he has an obligation to place before the court all material information which showed that it complied with the requirement of the rules of the court for the Court to grant his relief. Learned Counsel referred to Order 30 Rule 1 and 2 of this Court which the defendant’s motion was brought under and stated that the motion on notice dated 22/11/13 did not comply with that rule, and that non compliance with the rule is fatal to the application for stay of proceedings. Learned Counsel to the Claimant added that the 1st defendant/applicant has failed to comply with the rules of this court requiring him to compile records of appeal within twenty one (21) days period and is therefore, not entitled to a favourable exercise of this court’s discretion. In support of his argument learned counsel commended the cases of AGIP (NIG) LTD. V. AGIP PETROL INT’L (2010) 5 NWLR (PT. 1187) 348 at 394 – 395 to the Court. Learned Counsel added that an incompetent notice of appeal is as good as one never filed. He referred to the case of N.W.D. M. LTD V. UFT ENGR. LTD. (2010) 8 NWLR (PT. 1249) 308 AT 319 AND 327 to support his argument. Learned Counsel submitted that the appeal upon which the stay of proceeding is predicated is an interlocutory appeal and that the first ground of the appeal is challenging the ruling of this court that there exist a nexus between the Claimant and the 1st defendant, which is a ground of fact, secondly, relating to the interpretation of Section 254 (C)(1) of the amended 1999 constitution and fact of this case which also is a ground of mix law and fact, then lastly the last ground is based on fair hearing, which was never denied at any instance in this case. Learned Counsel submitted that principle of law which guide the Court in granting or refusing an application for stay of proceedings has been establish in plethora of cases. He cited the cases of OWENA BANK (NIG.) PLC VS. OLATUNJI (1999) 13 NWLR (PT. 634) 218 at 229, OLAWUNMI VS. MOHAMMED (1991) 4 NWLR (PT. 186) 516, GENERAL O. L. LTD. VS ODUNTAN (1990) 7 NWLR (PT. 163) 423., EZE VS. OKOLONJI (1997) 7 NWLR (PT. 513.), AROJOYE VS. UBA (1986) 2 NWLR (PT. 20) 101. Learned Counsel opined that, to him there is no valid appeal since the 1st defendant failed to obtain leave of this Court before filing his appeal upon which this application for stay is predicated. Therefore, from the facts of this case, there is no special exceptional circumstance which would warrant a stay of proceedings considering the 1st defendant will still have that right, after the conclusion of the case on its merit, if it is not in his favour. He added that the Claimant would suffer if there is undue delay of the proceedings. Referred to Arojoye V. UBA (supra), Odogwu Vs Odogwu (1990) 2 NWLR Pt. 143) 224, Bakare Vs. African Continental Bank (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 47 at pages 58 – 59, Aniagolu JSC to support his submission. Learned Counsel to the Claimant concluded by commending the supreme court decision in the case of Adelusola v. Akinde (2004) 2 NWLR (pt. 887) 295 to the Court and added it will not be in the interest of Justice for this court to grant the application of stay of proceedings. In his reply on points of law learned counsel to the 1st defendant filed a 19 paragraph reply affidavit dated and filed 5/12/13. Attached to it are 6 exhibits a written address. In the written address, he contended that the Claimant/respondent has not answered his submissions; therefore, the Claimant is bound by the said submissions and must be deemed to have conceded the points. Learned Counsel submitted that they are aware of Order 30(2) of the rules of this court. To the defendant, it is not stated in the rules that such fact as stated in the rules must be contained in the application for stay of proceedings. He added, that in paragraph 9 of his reply Affidavit as further evidence by exhibit JA3 that the record of appeal was compiled within 21 days, thus, applied that the Court discountenance the argument of the Claimant’s counsel. He further submitted that the claimant/respondent contention that. He (the 1st defendant) needed to obtain leave from this court before applying for an appeal is erroneous. To the defendant, their appeal deals with fundamental human right, particularly the right to fair hearing. Therefore, it is an appeal as of right making them not to require leave from this Court. He cited Section 243(2) of the constitution to support his argument. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant/respondent’s contention that his application collapses in the face of his submission is erroneous, that they had shown in paragraph 9 (b) of their affidavit that the appeal touches on jurisdiction of this court and this suffice as an exceptional circumstance to warrant a grant of this application. He further submitted that the health condition of the Claimant/Respondent has nothing to do with the competing rights of the parties. Learned Counsel further submitted that the respondent’s contention that this application is brought mala fide to delay proceedings is a mere allegation which lacks any legal support. To the defendant/applicant this is one case which this court ought to exercise its discretion to granting the application for stay of proceeding. After carefully considering all the processes filed and arguments of both Counsel across the divide, it is not out of place to make some preliminary comment on the processes filed, first is the process titled ''Reply Affidavit to Claimant's Counter affidavit dated 27th Nov. 2013'' It germane to point out that this sort of process is not known to the rules governing the practice and procedure of this Court. Order 11 NIC rules 2007 and the Practice Direction 2012 generally governs motions and interlocutory applications. See Order 11, Rule 5, provides as follows- '' Where a counter affidavit together with a Written Address is served on the Applicant, the Applicant may file a Written Reply Address on points of law within 7 days of service'' ( Underline is mine). It is apparent from the lucid and unambiguous provisions of the above quoted rule that all that the applicant need file in the circumstance is a written reply on points of law. It is therefore strange, out of place and alien to the rules of procedure of this Court to file what the applicant titled ''Reply affidavit..'' It is settled law that rules of Court are not made for fun but are meant to be obeyed. I seek refuge in the case of M.M.S. LTD. V. OTEJU (2005) 5 S.C (Pt I) 55 "A court of law can indulge a party only within the confines of its rules. In other words, a court of law can indulge a party in so far as its rules permit. Where rules of court in line with the fair hearing principles order a specific conduct on the part of the parties, the court has a duty to enforce the rules. In such a situation, the defence of fair hearing is not available to the aggrieved party because the rule itself has complied with fair hearing." Per. Tobi JSC. (P. 22. paras. E-G) - Consequently, the said process filed by the applicant dated and filed on 5th December 2013 is struck out of the Court's record for being superfluous and inconsistent with the rules of this Court. It was observed that the applicant referred the Court to Order 7 rule 3 of Court appeal Rules 2011, it should equally be stated clearly at this preliminary stage that Court of Appeal Rules 2011/Practice Direction 2013 referred to by the applicant is not applicable to the proceedings of this Court and thus it is discountenanced. Be that as it may, now to the main issue at hand. Which is whether or not the Court can grant a stay of proceedings in this suit considering the facts before it. The Court is in agreement with both parties as regard the principles guiding granting of stay of proceedings as enumerated in their respective written submissions, it is pertinent to emphasis the following-- 1. That Courts have an unimpeded discretion to grant or refuse a stay. In doing so the Court is bound to exercise that discretion both judicially and judiciously and not erratically. 2. A discretion to grant or refuse a stay must take into account the competing rights of the parties to justice. A discretion that is bias in favour of an applicant for stay but does not adequately take into account the respondent's equal right to justice is not judicially exercised. 3. The onus is on the party applying for a stay pending appeal to satisfy the Court that in the peculiar circumstances of his case a refusal of a stay would be unjust and inequitable. 4. Special and exceptional circumstances that will justify a stay of proceedings will depend on the facts of each case. First, It is apparent from the notice of appeal attached that there is no receipt evidencing filing of any appeal at the appellate Court and also no suit No. The implication of this is that there is no appeal before the appellate Court. There is equally nothing on record to show that the record of this Court was compiled and forwarded to the appellate Court. Although, the learned 1st defence/applicant counsel submitted that the record of this Court was compiled, but contended that the rules did not say that it must be stated by the applicant in its application for stay. It is trite that rules of Court as I had stated above in this ruling are meant to be obeyed; it therefore flows from this that such a requirement must be obeyed and complied with. The provision of the rules of Court is not for fun or window dressing. Order 30 Rule 2 requires that an applicant for stay should compile the record of Court, file same along with the notice of appeal and convince the Court that the said order has been complied with. I have not been able to see anything either in the affidavit in support of this application or the written submission of learned 1st defendant/applicant counsel in prove of that. The likely implication of this is that the applicant would not prosecute the appeal after it is granted the stay, differently put, the applicant will go to sleep after the grant of stay. It is thus in the calm view of this Court that the applicant has not complied with the rules of this Court concerning stay of proceedings. I so hold and find. It is pertinent to state that the Court, in considering whether to grant or refuse an application for stay, must consider the competing rights of the parties to justice and equity based on the available affidavit evidence before it. Furthermore, the court must consider the probable hardship which either the grant or refusal of the order for stay is likely to cause, and where the greater hardship lies. An order for stay of proceedings is, therefore, granted only if its refusal will likely cause greater hardship than granting same. The question of hardship, just like competing rights, is deducible from the affidavit evidence. It could be distilled from the affidavit deposed to by both parties after carefully going through same, that the Claimant/respondent would be subjected to more hardship if stay is granted than the 1st defendant/applicant. I say so considering the medical report attached to his affidavit in paragraphs 5 (a)- (p), wherein the state of health of the Claimant/respondent were stated and the attached medical reports i.e. Exhibits A-D. The applicant's reply to this in its written reply on points of law is that, those facts deposed to in the claimant's Counter affidavit is a mere sentimental concern which is far remote to this application. I agree with the 1st defendant/applicant that Courts are not giving to sentiment, it did not however deny or controvert the facts deposed to in the claimant's affidavit as regard his state of health. It is not enough to just say that that is mere sentimental without more. The 1st defendant did not controvert its displeasure or otherwise on the health status of the Claimants as deposed to in its affidavit in support of his motion. It is settled law that affidavit evidence that is neither attacked nor successfully challenged is deemed to have been admitted and the court can safely rely on the evidence in the just determination of a case. GOVERNOR OF ZAMFARA STATE & ORS. v. ALH. SULEIMAN MOH'D GYALANGE & ORS, [2012] LPELR-9. Consequently, facts deposed to in paragraphs 5 (a)- (p) of the Claimant's affidavit are deemed true, cogent and reliable. I wish to state that as it is in the case of an application for bail of an accused person which is an equitable relief as in this present. Courts are enjoined to consider the hardship that may be suffered by either of the parties before granting stay. It was the decision of the Apex Court in Eze v. Okolonji. (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 513) 515 at P. 529 paras. E-F that. - "One important factor in an application for stay of proceedings is hardship. A Court of law will be most reluctant to grant an application for stay of proceedings if it will cause greater hardship than if the application is refused... The question of hardship is a matter of fact which can be deduced from the competing affidavit evidence. The moment the Court comes to the conclusion that the grant of the application will do more harm than good, it will be refused." Stay of proceedings is granted with a view to preventing greater hardship. It is an equitable choice of the lesser hardship which may be caused by an order of refusal of stay than the greater hardship it would cause if stay is granted. Thus, once the court comes to the conclusion that stay of proceedings is likely to cause more hardship, the application must be refused. See these case law authorities generally on stay. VASWANI TRADING CO. V. SAVALAKH & CO. (1972) 12 S.C. 77; UTILGAS V. PAN AFRICAN BANK LTD (1974) 1 AII NLR (Pt. 2) 47; OBEYA MEMORIAL SPECIALIST HOSPITAL V. A-G OF THE FEDERATION (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 325; GOV.OF LAGOS STATE V. OJUKWU (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 621; JADESIMI V. OKOTIE- EBOH(1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 16) 264; NBN v. NET (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.31) 667. In NIKA FISHING CO. LTD. V. LAVINA CORP.supra, Tobi J.S.C. P. 27 Paras G-B. ''Stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation in the trial on the basis of the merits of his case, Consequently, the court's general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceedings beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue.'' Per TOBI, J.S.C. (P.27, Paras.G-B) It is the law that an appeal per se does not automatically operate as a stay of proceedings. Amongst the plethora of cases in this regard are the cases of SPDC NIG. LTD V AMADI & ORS [2011] LPELR, 3204; J.C. LTD V EZENWA [1996] 4 NWLR. PT. 443; 391; OLORI MOTORS CO.LTD V U.B.N.PLC[2006]10 NWLR(PT989) 586. This position of the law has a statutory blessing in Section 47 of the NICN Act which provides that an appeal against the decision of this Court cannot operate as stay of proceedings. It is in the light of the above, the fact that employment matters requires urgent and quick resolution and that where an interlocutory order does not finally dispose of the case, it would be wrong to stay proceedings because of an appeal lodged against it by an aggrieved party. This is so because such an order could be made the subject of an appeal if it ultimately becomes necessary following the final judgment. Accordingly, this application for stay of proceeding filed by the 1st defendant/applicant dated and filed on the 22nd Nov, 2013 lacks merit and time wasting and is hereby dismissed with N30,000.00 cost to the Claimant/respondent. The case shall proceed to trial for the case to be heard on merit. Ruling is accordingly entered. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI O.O. JUDGE