CORAM
M.L. UWAIS JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
U. MOHAMMED JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
Amina Adamu Augie
A.O. EJIWUNMI JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
FRANCHAL NIGERIA LTDCHIEF FRANCIS O. CHUKWU NZEKWESI APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Appellants were indebted to the Respondent. On 29th October, 1993 the Respondent took out a writ of summons in the erstwhile High Court of Anambra State holden at Onitsha. The case was placed on the undefended list.
HELD
That the refusal to grant stay of execution and the misdirection did not occasion any miscarriage of justice
ISSUES
Whether the Court of Appeal in refusing their application for stay acted improperly by relying on the content of an affidavit (Exhibit Q) in another case different from the present case, to hold that the 2nd Appellant admitted being indebted to the respondent in the sum of N29 million.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHAT APPLICANT MUST PROVE
An applicant for stay of execution bears the burden of showing that the grant of stay of execution will not result in the determination of the issue subject matter of the appeal, and there will be no injustice to the Respondent -Per Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte, JSC
CASES CITED
1. Intercontractors Nig. Ltd. v. U.A.C. Ltd. (1988) 2 NWLR (Part 76) 3032. LSDPC v. Citymark (W.A.) Ltd. (1998) 8 NWLR 6813. Odufoye v. Fatoke, (1975) 1 NMLR 222
STATUTES REFERRED TO
NONE