Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board V Divine Rays British School Limited
April 22, 2026PASTOR ISAIAH OKOYE V COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
April 22, 2026MR. W.G. ONORIOSE V FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR
Legalpedia Citation: (2026-02) Legalpedia 85226 (NIC)
In the National Industrial Court of Nigeria
Holden at Awka
Fri Dec 5, 2025
Suit Number: NICN/AWK/25/2024
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE J.I. TARGEMA, PhD
PARTIES
Mr. W.G. Onoriose
APPLICANT(S)
1. Federal Civil Service Commission
2. Honourable Minister of Education
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOUR LAW, CIVIL SERVICE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, APPEAL, STAY OF EXECUTION, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, DECLARATORY RELIEF, WRONGFUL DISMISSAL
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Judgment Creditor/Respondent, Mr. W.G. Onoriose, was a staff of the Federal Ministry of Education who was dismissed from service on 2nd April 2013, following allegations of sexual harassment of female students. He had been placed on suspension from 5th October 2012. He challenged his dismissal at the National Industrial Court, Enugu Division (Suit No. NICN/EN/222/2013), and after approximately twelve years of protracted litigation, the Court delivered judgment on 18th January 2024 in his favour. The Court declared his dismissal from the Federal Civil Service unlawful and unconstitutional as being inconsistent with the Civil Service Rules and the fair hearing provisions of the 1999 Constitution. Consequential upon those declarations, the Court set aside the letter of dismissal and the report of the panel upon which it was based, ordered his reinstatement to the Federal Civil Service, and directed payment of all outstanding salaries and allowances from the date of his suspension on 5th October 2012 until the date of reinstatement.
Instead of complying with the orders of the Court, the Honourable Minister of Education, as Judgment Debtor/Applicant, filed a Motion on Notice undated but filed on 12th April 2024 before the National Industrial Court, Awka Division, seeking an order staying the execution of the judgment of 18th January 2024, pending the determination of an appeal purportedly filed against the said judgment. The motion was brought pursuant to Order 64 Rules 8(1) and (3) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The motion was supported by a 17-paragraph affidavit (described as a 13-paragraph affidavit in the Court’s decision — see documentary anomaly noted below) and accompanied by two exhibits: Exhibit A, being the judgment of the Court, and Exhibit B, described as the Notice of Appeal. The grounds for the application were that a valid appeal had been filed disclosing substantial and arguable grounds; that special and exceptional circumstances existed; that execution would render the appeal nugatory, as the Judgment Creditor lacked the means to refund any monies paid if the appeal succeeded; and that the Applicant was financially capable of satisfying the judgment if the appeal failed.
The Judgment Creditor/Respondent filed a Counter-Affidavit in opposition, contending that the application was brought to delay and frustrate the enjoyment of the fruits of judgment after twelve years of litigation. He raised the critical objection that what the Applicant attached as Exhibit B was merely a Proposed Notice of Appeal which had not been filed at the Court of Appeal and bore no court stamp or acknowledgment. He further contended that the Applicant had paid nothing towards compilation of the record of proceedings, had not entered the appeal at the Court of Appeal, and had not sought any leave to appeal where required. He submitted that Order 64 Rule 13(2) of the Rules of the Court mandated compliance with specific preconditions before a stay application could be entertained and that none had been satisfied. He also maintained that the judgment was declaratory in nature and that, by settled law, declaratory judgments cannot be stayed.
The Court, having evaluated all processes and submissions, held that the application was unmeritorious. It found that there was no competent appeal upon which the application could be predicated, that the judgment was largely declaratory and not susceptible to a stay of execution, that no special or exceptional circumstances had been established, and that the competing balance of interests tilted heavily in favour of the Respondent who had litigated for twelve years. The application was accordingly refused and the Applicant directed to comply fully with the judgment.
HELD
The Court refused the application for stay of execution. It held that no competent appeal existed before the Court of Appeal upon which the application could be predicated, as what the Applicant attached as Exhibit B was merely a Proposed Notice of Appeal bearing no court stamp or acknowledgment of filing, and no evidence was placed before the Court of payment for compilation of the record of proceedings or entry of the appeal.
The Court further held that the judgment of 18th January 2024 was largely declaratory in nature and that, by settled law, declaratory judgments cannot be stayed since they merely proclaim the legal rights of parties and contain no positive order capable of execution. The Court found that no special or exceptional circumstance had been established to justify withholding the fruits of judgment from the Respondent after twelve years of litigation, and that the assertion of nugatory appeal was insufficient without cogent evidentiary foundation. The application was dismissed, the Applicant was directed to comply fully with the judgment including reinstating the Respondent and paying all salaries and entitlements as directed, and no order as to costs was made.
ISSUES
The sole issue formulated by the Applicant’s Counsel for determination was:
1. Whether the Applicant has disclosed the existence of special circumstances upon which an order for stay of execution can be granted by this Court?
The sole issue distilled by the Judgment Creditor/Respondent’s Counsel was:
1. Whether the present application is not liable to be dismissed?
The Court did not formally adopt and reframe the issues but proceeded to determine the application by addressing: (i) whether a valid appeal existed upon which the application could be predicated; (ii) whether the judgment was declaratory and therefore incapable of being stayed; (iii) whether special or exceptional circumstances had been established; and (iv) where the balance of equitable considerations lay.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL — GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS NOT GRANTED AS A MATTER OF COURSE AND THAT THE SUCCESSFUL LITIGANT IS ENTITLED TO THE FRUITS OF JUDGMENT
“An application for stay of execution is not granted as a matter of course. The Court exercises its discretion judicially and judiciously, bearing in mind that the successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of his judgment.” – Per J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL — CONDITIONS WHICH AN APPLICANT MUST SATISFY TO OBTAIN A STAY
“where an applicant seeks a stay of execution pending appeal, he must satisfy the Court that there is a valid appeal pending, that there are special or exceptional circumstances warranting the stay, and that the appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory if stay is refused.” – Per J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — MANDATORY PRECONDITIONS UNDER ORDER 64 RULE 13(2) OF THE NICN (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2017
“Order 64 Rule 13(2) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 specifically provides that an application for stay of execution shall not be entertained unless the applicant exhibits a valid Notice of Appeal, evidence of payment for compilation of record of proceedings, and proof that the appeal has been entered in the Court of Appeal.” – Per J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — JURISDICTION TO GRANT STAY ONLY EXISTS WHERE A VALID APPEAL IS PENDING; A PROPOSED NOTICE OF APPEAL IS INSUFFICIENT
“It is trite and a well-established general principle of law that stay of proceedings or execution will not be entertained unless an appeal has been lodged… the jurisdiction to stay execution of a judgment can only be exercised pending a valid appeal. Accordingly, in the absence of a pending appeal… the lower court did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.” – Per Ogunbiyi JSC in Dickson Ogunseinde Virya Farms Ltd v. Societe Generale Bank Ltd & Ors (2018) LPELR-43710(SC), adopted by J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — FINDING THAT A PROPOSED NOTICE OF APPEAL NOT FILED OR STAMPED AT THE REGISTRY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPETENT APPEAL
“From the face of the document, it is clear that it bears no court stamp or acknowledgment to show that it has been duly filed at the Registry of this Court or the Court of Appeal. There is also no evidence before me that payment for compilation of record has been made, or that the appeal has been entered. I am therefore in agreement with learned counsel for the Respondent that there is presently no competent appeal before the Court of Appeal upon which this application can be predicated.” – Per J.I. Targema J
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT — THE LAW THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE STAYED AS IT MERELY PROCLAIMS THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES
“The law is trite that a declaratory judgment cannot be stayed, because such a judgment merely proclaims the legal rights of the parties and contains no positive order capable of execution.” – Per J.I. Targema J
DECLARATORY ORDER — SETTLED LAW THAT A DECLARATORY ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF A COURT CANNOT BE STAYED BY AN ORDER OF STAY OF EXECUTION
“The settled law is that a declaratory order or judgment of a Court cannot be stayed by an order of stay of execution. See Awoniyi v. AMORC (2000) 10 NWLR (Pt. 676) 522; Okoya v. Santili (1990) 2 NWLR (Pt. 131) 172; Carena v. Akinlase (2008) LPELR-833 (SC).” – Per Tsammani JCA in Suffolk Petroleum Services Ltd & Ors v. Union Bank of Nig Plc (2021) LPELR-56493(CA), adopted by J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — A COURT OF JUSTICE OUGHT NOT TO PROTECT AN UNLAWFUL ACT MERELY BECAUSE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED
“It is too much to state that a court of justice should protect a deliberate tortious act simply because a party has filed an appeal… Once a person is adjudged a trespasser, it is only proper he be asked to cease that act of trespass.” – Per Odili JCA (as he then was) in Oyeleke v. Oyediran (2006) 1 NWLR (Pt. 962) 500 at 505, adopted by J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES: MERE ASSERTION THAT THE APPEAL WOULD BE RENDERED NUGATORY IS INSUFFICIENT; THE BURDEN LIES ON THE APPLICANT TO ESTABLISH SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND ORDINARY INCONVENIENCE
“Mere assertion that the appeal would be rendered nugatory if execution proceeds is not sufficient. See Mobil Oil (Nig.) Ltd v. Agadaigho (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.77) 383, where the Supreme Court held that the burden lies on the applicant to establish special circumstances beyond ordinary inconvenience.” – Per J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — INABILITY TO REFUND JUDGMENT SUM IF APPEAL SUCCEEDS MUST BE SUBSTANTIATED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE; THE COURT CANNOT ACT ON SPECULATION
“The argument that the Respondent may not be able to refund the sums involved if the appeal succeeds is also not substantiated by any credible evidence. The Applicant has not placed any material before the Court to show the amount involved or any peculiar difficulty in recovery. The Court cannot act on speculation.” – Per J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — EXERCISE OF EQUITABLE JURISDICTION REQUIRES BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS OF BOTH PARTIES
“In the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction, this Court is always guided by the need to balance the competing interests of both parties. In the present case, the scales tilt heavily in favour of the Respondent who, after years of suspension and eventual dismissal found unlawful, is entitled to the fruits of his judgment. The Applicant, having failed to show any valid appeal or special circumstance, does not deserve the indulgence of the Court.” – Per J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL — WHAT CONSTITUTES SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES; INSTANCES WHERE THE COURT WILL EXERCISE DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF AN APPLICANT
“what constitutes special circumstances for the grant of a stay of execution has been judicially defined in a line of authorities, including Oyelami & Ors v. Military Administrator of Osun State & Ors (1999) LPELR–6577 (CA) and University of Ilorin v. Akinola (2007) All FWLR (Pt.372) 1844, to include instances where execution would destroy the subject matter of the proceedings, foist upon the Court of Appeal a situation of helplessness, render nugatory any order of the appellate court, paralyze the right of appeal, or make a return to status quo impossible.” – Per Counsel for the Applicant as recorded and accepted in framing the legal parameters, referencing principles cited by J.I. Targema J
STAY OF EXECUTION — FINAL DISPOSITION: APPLICATION REFUSED WHERE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN A VALID APPEAL OR SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE; APPLICANT ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH JUDGMENT
“I find this application to be unmeritorious. The motion on notice dated and filed on the 12th day of April 2024 for stay of execution of the judgment of this Court delivered on the 18th of January 2024 is hereby refused. The Applicant is hereby ordered to comply fully with the judgment of this Court, including reinstating the Respondent and paying all salaries and entitlements as directed therein.” – Per J.I. Targema J
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) (fair hearing provisions)
• National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 — Order 64 Rules 8(1), 8(3) and 13(2)
• Federal Public Service Rules, 2009 (referenced in the grounds of appeal as the governing instrument for the Respondent’s employment)
OTHER CITATIONS
CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT
COUNSEL
1. O.C. Okonkwo, Esq., holding the brief of Irikefe Donald Tuggen, Esq., for Judgment Creditor/Respondent.
2. K.C. Ifeddeba, Esq., holding the brief of Florence A. Avhioboh, Esq., for Judgment Debtor/Applicant.
No legal representation for Judgment Debtor/Respondent
