CORAM
ELIAS CHIEF JUSTICE, NIGERIA
MADARIKAN JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UDOMA JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
J. O OJOSIPE APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The plaintiff institute an action against the defendant, claiming that by virtue of Yoruba native Custom, they are entitled to over 800 out of the 1152 hectares of land situate in Iju, which the Federal Government had acquired for the construction of Iju Catchment Board. The defendant had received 518,805 pounds compensation as land-owner agent from the government and neither did he render account of his stewardship to them nor gave them what was due to them as compensation.
HELD
That an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution or proceedings of the court below and that it was inappropriate for the lower court to grant a leave to appeal in respect of an order which is ancillary to the main order still pending before it.
ISSUES
Whether or not notice of appeal from the ruling of a High Court judge should operate as a stay of execution or of proceeding arising out of his decision in the absence, apparently, of any contrary direction either by that High Court or by the Supreme Court
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WHETHER AN APPEAL OPERATES AS A STAY OF EXECUTION
An appeal does not operate as a of stay of execution or the proceedings of the court below except in so far as the court below or the court of appeal may otherwise direct. Per Coker Jsc
RATIOANALE FOR GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL
a leave to appeal should not be granted by a court in respect of its own order where its subject matter is ancillary to that of the main order which is still pending before the court. Per Coker Jsc
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Supreme Court Act 1960