Download PDF
By a motion dated and filed on 28th March, 2014 brought pursuant to Order 15, Order 11 Rules (1) of the Rules of this court, Section 47 of the National Industrial Court Act, Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, the applicant prays the court for an order staying execution of the judgment of this court delivered on 21st March, 2014 pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal filed against the said judgment. The application is supported by a 12 paragraph affidavit sworn to by one Olushola Erinfolami, a legal practitioner of the chambers of Ubong Akpan. The applicant also filed a 13 page written address wherein the applicant argued that this court has power to grant stay of execution under Section 47 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Counsel submitted that the grant of an order of stay is purely at the discretion of the court hearing it. He referred to the case of Amadi v. Anulabo [1992] NWLR (pt. 238) p. 721. Learned Counsel submitted that what the applicant needs to show to earn the court’s discretion in its favour is to show that it has competent and valid appeal, that the appeal raises unanswerable question of law, special or exceptional circumstance, inability of the respondent to refund the judgment sum and tht balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant. In support the applicant cited the cases of C.B.N v. Krans Thompson Org. Ltd [2002] 7 NWLR (pt. 765) p. 139, Baker v. Lavery [1885] 14 QBD 769, The Annot Lyle [1886] 11 PD 144 at p. 166, Deduwa & Ors v. Okorodudu & Ors [1974] 1 All NLR (pt. 1) p. 272, Cornelius Ltd v. Ezenwa [2002] 8 NWLR (pt. 670) p. 616. Learned Counsel urged the court to grant this application on the ground that the grounds of appeal are unanswerable in favour of the applicant that if the execution of judgment is not stayed it would be impossible for claimant to refund the judgment sum, that preservation of the res is to prevent any judgment on appeal from being rendered nugatory and the balance of convenience is on the applicant. The claimant/respondent opposed the application by filing a 9 paragraph counter affidavit sworn to by one John Okere on 16th April, 2014. The claimant also filed a written address and raised two issues for determination. He argued that the principles to guide the court in the exercise of its discretion to grant stay of execution have been laid down in a long line of cases. He cited the case of Okafor & Ors v. Nnaife [1987] 4 NWLR (pt. 64) p. 129. That the courts have unimpeded discretion to grant or refuse a stay, that a discretion to grant or refuse stay must take into account the competing rights of the parties, that a winning party has a right to the fruits of his judgment and that the applicant must show special and exceptional circumstances. He also relied on the book Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Courts of Nigeria (First Edition) para. 44.29 at page 535, Vincent Standard Trading Co. Ltd vs. Xtodeus Trading Co. Nig. Ltd & Ors [1993] 5 NWLR 675 at 686. Learned Counsel submitted that the facts deposed in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support can hardly support any special circumstance, that the res here is only a monetary claim whereby if the defendant is allowed to retain the judgment debt just because they are a club of nouve riche is tantamount to giving it undue advantage. He relied on the case of Union Bank Ltd v. Odusote Book Store Ltd [1994] 3 NWLR (pt. 331) p. 129. He submitted that the applicant’s affidavit fall short of the requirements of law and hence the applicant is not entitled to stay of judgment in this case. He also submitted that the grounds of appeal are frivolous and have not raised any substantial or recondite point of law that will warrant a stay of execution. He relied on the case of Lijadu v. Lijadu [1991] 5 NWLR (pt. 169) p. 627, Ajomae v. Yadant (No. 2) [1991] 5 NWLR (pt. 191) p. 266, T.S.A Industrial Ltd v. Kema Investment Ltd [2006] 3 MJSC p. 1. He further submitted that a look at the record of proceedings will show that the defendant participated in the whole proceeding leading to the judgment and did not protest denial of fair hearing. He cited Section 243 (3) of the Constitution and submitted that the law made it clear that until the National Assembly makes any other law for purpose of appealing the judgment of this court, appeal based on such law shall be by leave of the Court of Appeal. That the applicant surreptitiously tried to cling on Chapter IV of the Constitution to deceive this court to grant it a stay of the execution of its judgment in this suit. He argued finally that the balance of convenience is not on the defendant’s favour. I have carefully considered this application, the authorities relied upon and the submission of counsel. I am of the view that the issue for determination here is whether this court should grant a stay of execution in the circumstance of this case. This court is empowered by its enabling Act to decide whether to grant a stay of execution or not. Section 47 of National Industrial Court Act, 2006 provides thus: “Where permitted by this Act or any other Act of the National Assembly, an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the court shall not operate as a stay of execution but the court may order a stay of execution either unconditionally or upon the performance of such conditions as may be imposed in accordance with Rules of Court.” From the above provision, this court is empowered to grant or refuse an application for stay of execution and to grant unconditionally and upon performance of such conditions at the discretion of the court. The appellate courts have laid down guiding principles which are to be taken into account when considering whether or not to grant a stay of execution. See Olojede v. Olaleye [2010] 4 NWLR (pt. 1183) p. 1 at 41, Martins v. Nicannar Foods Co. Ltd [1988] 2 NWLR (pt. 74) p. 75, Shodeinde v. Regd. Trustees of Ahmadiya Movement in Islam [1980] 1, 2, CS p. 163, Vaswani Trading Co. Ltd v. Savalakh & Co. [1972] 12 SC 77, Nwabueze v. Nwosu [1988] 4 NWLR (pt. 88) p. 257. Also in the case of Olunloyo v. Adeniran [2001] 14 NWLR (pt. 734) 699 where the Supreme Court held that – “a stay of execution will only be granted if and only if the court is satisfied that there are special or exceptional circumstances to warrant doing so…” Also in T.S.A (Ind.) Ltd v. Kema Investment Ltd [2006] All FWLR (pt. 300) 1564 at 1576, Ogbuagu JSC held: “Of course, and this is settled that where an applicant has a wonderful, substantial, impressive and arguable grounds of appeal, it is not a special circumstance for granting a stay. In other words, it is not every case where grounds of appeal raise point or points of law that stay of execution will be granted.” This court is empowered under Section 47 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 to grant stay of execution either unconditionally and upon condition. In other words, the court has the discretion to grant a conditional stay if it deem fit. In the case of Okin Biscuits v. Oshe [2001] FWLR (pt. 41) p. 1934 the court held that “the payment of the judgment debt into an interest yielding account will meet the justice of the case, as any party in whose favour the judgment is given at the end of the appeal will not suffer any loss since there is a bank guarantee…” On the strength of the above pronouncements of the appellate courts referred to above and after comparing the competing interests of the parties in this case, I hold that this is appropriate case where a conditional stay of execution ought to be granted. In the circumstance, I hereby grant a conditional stay of this judgment. I therefore order the defendant/applicant to deposit the judgment sum of N7,548,947.49 (Seven Million, Five Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Seven Naira, Forty Nine Kobo) in an interest yielding account to be opened by the Assistant Chief Registrar, Lagos Division of this Court within 30 days from today. I make no order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge