Dear Friends of CLRN Welcome again to this week’s CLRN newsletter! Subscriptions This is a reminder to our current print subscribers that the November issue [cited as (2013) 11 CLRN] is now available in print. Online subscribers can also access the November issue on the website. Even if you are not a subscriber you can purchase individual digests, cases or volumes. Log on to clrndirect Comments and Feedback Remember that our Weekly Case Reviews are also posted on our blog so please share the link with friends and colleagues who are not already on our mailing list: commerciallawreportsnigeria.blogspot We very much value your feedback and we thank everyone who has provided us with this and encourage you to leave comments on our blog or write to the CLRN editor to share thoughts or views on our Case Review and anything else you would like to see included in the weekly newsletter. Case Review A stay of execution is not automatic INTEGRATION NIG. LTD V. ZUMAFON NIG. LTD SUPREME COURT (I.T. MUHAMMAD; FABIYI; PETER-ODILI; ARIWOOLA; M.D. MUHAMMAD JJ.SC) The Respondent sued the Appellant for breach of contract at the Enugu State High Court seeking damages and an order for specific performance. The trial court awarded general damages in the sum of N8,000,000 (Eight Million Naira) and costs of N10,000 (Ten Thousand Naira). The Appellant was dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant also filed a motion for stay of execution of the judgment at the trial court. The trial court granted an order for stay of execution on the condition that the judgment debt and costs be paid into an interest yielding account in the name of the Assistant Chief Registrar of the court pending the final resolution of the appeal. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against the conditional grant of the order for stay. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Still dissatisfied, the Appellant further appealed to the Supreme Court. The singular issue for determination before the apex court was: “Whether the court of appeal acted judiciously and judicially by refusing to interfere with the discretion of the lower court exercised in favour of the appellant.” It was the Appellant’s submission that there was no breach of contract that warranted an award of damages. It was further submitted that the Respondent did not challenge this fact in its counter affidavit but merely insisted that the Respondent was entitled to reap the benefit of the judgment given in its favour. He argued that the refusal of the Court of Appeal to consider the grounds of appeal and appraise the judgment was prejudicial to its application and occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Inversely, the Respondent’s counsel argued that the grant of an order for stay of execution of a judgment pending appeal is discretionary and that an appellate court can only interfere with the discretion of a lower court where the discretion is manifestly wrong, arbitrary, reckless and injudicious. It argued that the Appellant failed to raise any issue pertaining to recklessness, arbitrariness or injudiciousness of the ruling. Counsel to the Respondent submitted that the decision of the trial court ordering the judgment debt to be paid into an interest yielding account cannot be described as injudicious, arbitrary or reckless. The Supreme Court noted that the discretion in granting or refusing an application for stay of execution of a judgment already delivered will be exercised where it is demonstrated that the appeal involves substantial point or points of law necessitating that the parties and matters be kept in status quo until the legal issues are resolved. In dismissing the appeal, the Court held as follows: “It must not be lost sight of in all these that at the root of it all is the basic fact that a party to obtain a stay of execution of a judgment against a successful adversary must show substantial reasons to justify the denial of that successful party of the fruit of his judgment by the court. To state the above differently is to emphasize that a judgment that is executory should have no hindrance from the delivery of the judgment to the effecting of the order or orders of court emanating therefrom. A basic rule and sacrosanct and so to restrain the immediate execution of that judgment some special circumstances or unique occurrence must exist to hold back the hand of the court. See Balogun v. Balogun (1969) All NLR 341.” …..It is however trite law that the grant or refusal of stay of execution of judgment by the court is purely discretionary, though the discretion must be exercised both judicially and judiciously but certainly not arbitrarily. See; Okafor & Ors v. Nnaije (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.64) 129. …In this regard is a reiteration of the fact that this court in its appellate jurisdiction will rarely interfere with the exercise of its discretion by the lower courts. It can only be done where such an exercise is based on extraneous issues or where the exercise of such discretion is not bona fide. I place reliance on the case of Obi Eze v. Attorney General of Rivers State (2001) 12SC (Pt. II) 21 at 31 & 32. …It is settled law that a stay of execution of a judgment will only be granted by the court, if it is satisfied that there are special or exceptional circumstances to warrant doing so. The reason being that the law is that a judgment of a court of law is presumed to be correct and rightly given until the contrary is proved or established.” Counsel: Dr. E. E. J. Okereke for the Appellant. This summary is fully reported at (2014) 2 CLRN info@clrndirect clrndirect Join in our discussion of the above report at commerciallawreportsnigeria.blogspot
Posted on: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:33:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015