IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISON

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. A. YELWA ...... JUDGE

 

THIS FRIDAY 23^rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026            

SUIT NO: NICN/AB/67M/2026

 

BETWEEN:

 

MR.  TAYO AJIBULU            - JUDGMENT CREDITOR/RESPONDENT

AND

STACO INSURANCE PLC     - JUDGMENT DEBTOR/APPLICANT

 

RULING

By a motion dated and filed 29/9/2025, the Applicant/Judgment Debtor seeks the following orders;

 

1.       An order for stay of execution of the Judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on the 18^th day of July, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal filed by the Judgment Debtor/Applicant.

2.     And for such further order or others as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.

 

GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE APPLICATION IS PREDICATED

1.       There is a valid and competent Appeal against the said Judgment of this Honourable Court.

2.     The Judgment Debtor/Applicant has filed a Notice of Appeal against the Judgment of this Honourable Court with arguable and recondite points of law and facts.

3.     The Appeal of the Applicant/Judgment Debtor has been formally entered before the Court of Appeal, Lagos, upon completion of the compilation and transmission of the Record of Appeal by the Registrar of this Honourable Court.

4.     That it is in the overriding interest of justice to stay the execution of the said Judgment pending the determination of the Appeal which is now pending and due for determination at the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division.

The motion is brought pursuant to Order 64 Rule 8(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Honourable Court.

The motion is supported by a 24-paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Gladys Udoakang, a legal officer of the Judgment Debtor, attached to the affidavit are 5 exhibits, and accompanied by a written address of counsel.

The Judgment Creditor/Respondent filed a 4-paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Sunday Omijie, a Litigation Officer in the Law Firm of the Judgment Creditor, accompanied by a written address, in opposition to the Judgment Debtor/Applicant’s motion.

On 29/4/2026, the motion came up for hearing during which both, counsel adopted their written addresses.

 

SUBMISSIONS OF APPLICANT’S COUNSEL

Applicant’s counsel raised a sole issue for determination to wit;

Whether it is proper and just for this Honourable Court to Order a stay of Execution of the Judgment delivered on the 18^th day of July, 2025.

 

Learned counsel submitted that the Honourable Court has the power to exercise its discretion to grant or refuse a stay of execution where the circumstances justify it, particularly to prevent injustice and preserve the Applicant’s right of appeal. Counsel referred the Court to Section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1999) as amended, I.C.C. Ltd. v. Granville & Sons Ltd. (1996) 8 NWLR (Pt. 456) 187, which recognises the Court’s discretion to grant or refuse a stay of execution, whether the subject matter to be preserved is tangible or intangible.

Counsel submitted that the affidavit in support of this application establishes special circumstances warranting a stay, including the assertion that the judgment debt cannot be liquidated. Counsel further submitted that the Employee Handbook of 2012 (Exhibit CW4), relied upon by the Respondent and the Court in calculating the monetary awards, was no longer applicable because it had been replaced by a newer version. Counsel relied on the case of Amadi v. Chukwu (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1347) 301.

It is the submission of counsel that special circumstances exist to justify a stay of execution. Such circumstances include preserving the subject matter of the litigation, preventing the appeal from being rendered nugatory, and ensuring that the parties can return to the status quo if the appeal succeeds.

Counsel contended that a competent appeal has been duly filed before the Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal and proof of transmission, marked as Exhibits A2 and A3, are attached to the supporting affidavit. Counsel cited the case of Clev Josh Ltd. v. Tokimi (2008) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1104) 422.

Counsel further contended that the subject matter of the appeal (res) must be preserved pending its determination. Counsel maintained that the Court has inherent and statutory powers to protect the subject matter and ensure that a successful appeal is not rendered nugatory. Counsel referred the Court to the case of NITEL Plc v. I.C.I.C. (Directory Publishers Limited) (2009) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1167) 356.

 

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL.

Respondent’s counsel raised a sole issue for determination to wit;

Whether the Judgment Debtor/Applicant has made out a case for the grant of the Reliefs sought vide the motion on notice dated 29^th September, 2025.

 

Learned counsel submitted that the Applicant’s motion for Stay of Execution is premature and incompetent, having not complied with Order 64 Rule 8 (3) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 which is a condition precedent to bringing the instant application.

Order 64 Rule 8 (3) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides that:

 3) Furthermore, the mere filing of an application simplicita shall not be sufficient for the Court to grant a;

a)   Stay of execution of the judgement of the Court or;

b)   Stay of proceeding before the Court.

Provided that where an appeal has been filed, and all records of proceedings have been transmitted and an appeal has been entered: that is to say the appeal has been issued a number, the Court may on Sufficient grounds stay the execution of the judgement or of the proceedings upon which the appeal has been entered.

Provided further that in an application seeking for the stay of execution of the judgment of the Court pending appeal, where an appeal has been entered in line with the provisions of this Order, the Court may stay the execution of the judgment on the condition that the judgment debt (where the issue is monetary) is paid into an interest yielding account with the name “The Chief Registrar, National Industrial Court of Nigeria” pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.

 

Counsel submitted that an application for a stay of execution of a monetary judgment before the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) should not be entertained unless the judgment debtor/applicant has first paid the judgment sum into an interest-yielding account in the name of the Chief Registrar of the Court, in accordance with Order 64 Rule 8(3) of the NICN (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017.

Counsel further submitted that the Applicant’s failure to comply with this requirement is said to render the application premature and deprive the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain it. Counsel contended that it is an established legal principle that where the law prescribes a procedure for doing an act, that procedure must be strictly followed, and failure to satisfy a mandatory condition precedent renders the subsequent act invalid. Counsel cited the case of Adhekegba v. Minister of Defence (2013) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1382) 126 at 147 (CA), paragraphs D–F.

It is the submission of counsel that the Applicant has failed to disclose any special circumstance that will warrant the Court to grant a stay of execution of the Judgment of the Court. Counsel relied on Moore Associates Ltd. v. Exphar S.A. (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1872) 619 at 643, and Nwabueze v. Nwosu (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 88) 257 at 266, which reaffirm the principle that a stay of execution should not be granted as a matter of course.

Counsel urged the Court to refuse the application for a stay of execution and dismiss it because the Applicant has failed to demonstrate the special circumstances required by law. Counsel maintained that there is an onus on an Applicant seeking for a stay of execution to provide sufficient materials upon which the Court may exercise its discretion one way or the other. The Applicant is expected to discharge this onus by establishing in the affidavit evidence, special circumstances to warrant a suspension of the Judgment Creditor’s right and entitlement to the fruits of the judgment. Counsel referred the Court to the case of SPDC (Nig.) Ltd v. Okei (2006) 17 NWLR (pt. 10071 at p. 21 paras B-D.

Learned counsel submitted that there is no res which is in danger of destruction neither has the judgment Debtor/Applicant presented any fact showing its difficulty in paying the sum awarded by the Honourable Court. Counsel submitted that the law is trite that the grant of an application for stay of execution pending appeal is subject to the discretion of the Honourable Court, of which discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously on the weight of the material placed before the Court by the Applicant. Counsel cited the case of Unilag v. Aigoro (1985) 1 NWLR (pt. 1) 143 at pg. 148 para F.

Counsel maintained that the rationale for granting the stay of execution is rooted in the principle of law that a successful litigant should not be deprived of the fruits of his judgment, and that every judgment of Court subsists, and is correct until it is set aside on appeal.

DECISION OF THE COURT

 

Having gone through the Motion on Notice, affidavit in support, exhibits attached to the affidavit as well as learned Applicant counsel submission in support of the Motion on Notice; I have also taken my time to consider the counter affidavit, annextures and the accompanying written address of Counsel to the Judgment Creditor/Respondent against the grant of this Application, this Court having sieved the facts and the issues canvassed by both counsel has distilled a sole issue for the determination of this application to wit:

 

Whether the Applicant has placed sufficient materials before the court to warrant the grant of a stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 18^th July, 2025, pending the hearing and determination of appeal filed by the Judgment Debtor/Applicant.

 

It is trite that the grant or refusal of an application for stay of execution is within a discretionary judicial power which must be exercised judiciously and judicially. The discretion is exercised based on equitable principles wherein the Court balances the competing interests of the parties. The Court has to bear in mind that a successful litigant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his success in a suit, thus any delay of his right to enjoy the fruit of his success must be predicated upon exceptional circumstances; notwithstanding also, that the appellant’s right to present his appeal ought not be impeded vis-à-vis the interest of preserving the res. See Vaswani Trading Co. V. Savalakh & Co. [1972] 12 SC. 77; Okafor v. Nnaife [1987] 4 NWLR (Pt. 64) 129; Olunloyo v. Adeniran [2001] 14 NWLR (PT. 734) 699.

I have to restate at this point that an Applicant in an application for stay must show that there exist special or exceptional circumstances; bearing in mind that the compelling reason for granting a stay is to preserve the res from destruction in order to avoid a situation whereby if the appeal is successful, the decision of the Court of Appeal would be rendered nugatory. This is well illustrated in Olojede v. Olaleye [2010] All FWLR (Pt. 551) 1503. However, it is worth noting that the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 is applicable to all civil proceedings in this Court.

Amongst many other provisions, the NICN Rules stipulates the conditions under which the execution of the judgment of the court will be stayed pending appeal by an unsuccessful party. A close mark reading of Order 64 Rule 8(3) reveals that the appeal must have been entered in a matter for a stay of execution to be granted, rather than upon a mere filing of an application simpliciter for stay.

The provisions of the NICN Rules, similarly empowers the Court to stay execution of judgment on the condition that the judgment debt (where the issue is monetary) is paid into an interest yielding account in the name “The Chief Registrar, National Industrial Court of Nigeria” pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal.

In the instant application, the Applicant has not offered any security or sought for payment of the Judgment sum at this stage. An Applicant cannot seek the indulgence of the Court for a Stay of Execution, while refusing to comply with the statutory safety designed to protect the respondent, as well.

A stay of Execution absolutely requires a valid notice of appeal, evidence of payment for records of proceedings and proof that the appeal has been entered in the Court of Appeal. For a stay of execution to succeed, the Applicant must show that special circumstances exist; and that what constitutes special circumstances, for purpose of stay of execution is very wide and each case is treated according to its peculiar facts and circumstances. See the cases of ADVANCED COATING TECHNOLOGY NIG. LTD v. FBN PLC (2008) 29 WRN 160 AT 171 LINES 30-48, per MUKHTAR, JCA (as he then was); NDABA NIG. LTD v. UNION BANK OF NIG. PLC (2008) 6 W.R.N 11 at 43-46 lines 45-35, per AGUBE, JCA, at page 38 lines 25-40.

It is settled that in deciding whether or not to grant an application for stay of execution, a Court must at least, consider and answer some key questions. These include:

 

1.      Whether there is a valid and competent pending appeal:

2.      Whether the Applicant has shown by credible evidence that there are special or exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of the application;

 

The law is trite that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, mere filing of an application for stay of execution shall not operate as stay of execution nor does an intention to file an Appeal amounts to an Appeal. Going by Exhibit A3 which is a copy of the Notice of Appeal filed by the Judgment Debtor/Applicant, attached to the affidavit in support of the Notice for Stay of Execution, Appeal Number has not been given to show unequivocally that the appeal has been entered. See Order 64 Rule 8 (2) NICN (Civil Procedures) Rules, 2017.

Having arrived at this conclusion, I find and hold that the Applicant has not filed an Appeal against the judgment of this Court, which I so hold.

The Rules of this Court has also clearly provided conditions as guide under which this Court in exercising its discretion whether to grant a stay of execution or not. Specifically, Order 64 Rule 13 (2) requires a dissatisfied party applying for a stay to do the following:

 

a.    File a Notice of Appeal;

b.    Pay for the compilation of the records of proceedings

c.     Exhibit CTC of the judgment or order the party is appealing against;

d.    Exhibit evidence that the Appeal has been entered in line with the appropriate rules of the practice direction of the court of appeal; show that there is a valid appeal before the court of appeal and

e.     Exhibit evidence that leave has been granted by the Court of Appeal, where leave is required either by law or by the Rules of the Court of Appeal.

 

From the materials placed before me, I can assess that the applicant up to the point of hearing this application, was seemed to have been struggling only to process the perfection of the appeal which could not be taken to be conclusive valid and pending appeal in full context.

Perhaps a plausible and reasonable purpose for the stringent conditions in Order 64 may not be unconnected with the special nature of this Court and the fact that it caters mostly for employees, who oftentimes are claiming for terminal, retirement and other benefits, unpaid salaries, reinstatement, damages for wrongful termination or dismissal etc. It is obvious that judgment creditors in this category certainly do not have the luxury of time. Also, there is the need to shield judgment-creditors at the NICN from the usual ritual that is associated with Appeal and stay of execution which may deprive a successful party of the fruits of his judgment for many years or the shenanigans of judgment debtors and their Counsel who may not even intend to diligently pursue an Appeal but will nonetheless file a Notice of Appeal and a Motion for Stay, then go to sleep while frustrating the judgment-creditor for several years.

It follows, therefore, that this application for stay of execution having failed to fully comply with the provisions of the rules of this Court therefore lacks merit. Accordingly, this motion is refused and is hereby dismissed. Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

….…………………………..

HON. JUSTICE S. A. YELWA

(JUDGE)

APPEARANCES:

 

Chinaza Ugwu     -        -        for the Judgment Creditor/Respondent

 

Cyril Joseph         -        -        for the Judgment Debtor/Applicant