CORAM
ANIAGOLU, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
NNAMANI, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
UWAIS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OPUTA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
LAWRENCE OKAFOR
APPELLANTS
FELIX NNAIFE
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
STAY OF EXECUTION-LAND LAW-NATURAL JUSTICE
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The respondent sued the appellant at the Onitsha High Court for declaratory and injunctive reliefs as well as damages for trespass in respect of a land. After trial the court granted the claims. The appellant applied for a stay of the injunction at the same court but was denied same. Then another application for stay was filed at the court of appeal which was also refused, hence this appeal.
HELD
Dismissing the appeal
ISSUES
Whether their Lordships of the Court of Appeal did or did not exercise their discretion properly on the materials before them in refusing the Appellants a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Courts?
RATIONES DECIDENDI
PRINCIPLE GUIDING COURTS IN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
The onus is, therefore, 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. Per Aniogolu JSC
PRINCIPLE GUIDING COURTS IN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
What principles will, and should, guide the Courts in applications for a stay of execution? These principles have been reiterated in very many decisions of this Court. Perhaps it may be well here to re-emphasise some of them –
(1)The Courts have an unimpeded discretion to grant or refuse a stay. In this, like in all other instances of discretion, the Court is bound to exercise that discretion both judicially as well as 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 biased in favour of an applicant for a stay but does not adequately take into account the respondents equal right to justice is a discretion that has not been judicially exercised.
(3)A winning Plaintiff or party has a right to the fruits of his judgment and the Courts will not make a practice at the instance of an unsuccessful litigant of depriving a successful one of the fruits of the judgment in his favour until a further appeal is determined.
(4)An unsuccessful litigant applying for a stay must show “special circumstances” or “exceptional circumstances” eloquently pleading that the balance of justice is obviously weighted in favour of a stay.
PRINCIPLE GUIDING COURTS IN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
What will constitute these “special” or “exceptional” circumstances will no doubt vary from case to case. By and large, however, that such circumstances will involve “a consideration of some collateral circumstances and perhaps in some cases inherent matters which may, unless the order for stay is granted, destroy the subject matter of the proceedings or foist upon the Court, especially the Court of Appeal, a situation of complete helplessness or render nugatory any order or orders of the Court of Appeal or paralyse, in one way or the other, the exercise by the litigant of his constitutional right of appeal or generally provide a situation in which whatever happens to the case, and in particular even if the appellant succeeds in the Court of Appeal, there could be no return to the status quo. Per Aniogolu JSC
PRINCIPLE GUIDING COURTS IN APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
The Court will grant a stay where its refusal would deprive the appellant of the means of prosecuting the appeal. Per Aniogolu JSC
RADICAL AND PRIMARY ROLE OF COURTS
The radical and primary role of Courts is to do justice in the atmosphere of fairness. Per Aniogolu JSC
CASES CITED
Balogun V. Balogun (1969)1 All N. L. R. 349
Utilgas Nigerian & Overseas Gas Co. Ltd. v. Pan African Bank Ltd. (1974) 1 All N. L. R. (Part II) 47
Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh & Co (1972) 12 S. C. 77 at p.82
the Annot Lyle (1886) 11 P.D. 144 at p.116 C.A.
Emmerson v. md. Coope & Co. (1886) 55 L.J. Ch. 905.
STATUTES REFERRED TO