Hon. Levi Oguike Anor v Imo State Government Anor
| Judge | Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe |
| Judgment Date | 20 July 2016 |
| Respondent | Imo State Government Anor |
| Appellant | Hon. Levi Oguike Anor |
| Docket Number | NICN/OW/03/2014 |
| Counsel | <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">N. |
| Court | National Industrial Court (Nigeria) |
The Judgment Debtors/Applicants on
17/02/2016 filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 30 Rules (1) & (2) of
the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, and sought among others, an order
staying the execution of the judgment of this court delivered on the 13th
day of January, 2016 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. The
grounds for this application are as follows:
1.
The execution of the judgment of the
trial court will paralyse the exercise of the constitutional right of appeal by
the judgment debtors/Applicants.
2.
The execution of the judgment of the
trial court will destroy the subject matter of the appeal.
3.
The execution of the judgment of the
trial court will create hardship on the judgment debtors/applicants and foist a
situation of complete hopelessness in the event that the appeal succeeds.
4.
The appeal raises substantial, recondite
and arguable issues of law.
This application was supported by a 12
paragraph affidavit deposed to by one Bruno Nwachukwu a litigation officer in
the Imo State Ministry of Justice. In the accompanying written address, counsel
raised one issue for determination as follows:
Whether
the applicants are entitled to a grant of an order staying the execution of the
judgment in this suit pending the hearing and determination of the appeal
already filed.
Counsel argued that the court has the
discretion, which ought to be exercised judicially and judiciously to grant or
refuse the sort of order in this application. It is the further argument of
counsel that the principles guiding the court’s discretion in this instance are
as follows:
i.
Where there is a substantial issue of
law in an area that is somewhat recondite as may
be
gleaned from the proposed notice and grounds for appeal. See NITEL vs. MAFIA OIL LTD (2009) 5-6 SC (Pt. 11)
191 at 202 and ODEDEYI vs. ODEDEYI
(2000) 2 SC 93.
ii.
Where the judgment of the lower court is
wrong or perverse
iii.
Where the res cannot be preserved as to
render any consequential order on appeal
nugatory. See DOMA vs. OGIRI (1998) 8 NWLR (Pt. 561) 193.
iv.
Special or exceptional circumstances
Furthermore, counsel submitted that the
proposed Notice of Appeal in the instant case discloses substantial grounds of
appeal and a constitutional issue of law. See VASWANI vs. SAVALAKH (1972) 12 SC 77. Counsel referred to the case
of NNPC vs. O.E. NIG LTD (2008) 8 NWLR (Pt.
1090) 583 and submitted that the court has the obligation to keep in mind
when faced with an application of this nature certain principles. These
principles include the existence of a pending appeal valid in law that is
competent and arguable on its merits. It is the submission of counsel that the
Applicants have fulfilled all the conditions necessary for the court to
exercise his jurisdiction and grant a stay. Counsel urged the court to grant
this application in the interest of justice.
In opposition, the Judgment
Creditors/Respondents on 26th February 2016 filed a counter
affidavit of 12 paragraphs deposed to by one Kalu Uduma, a Counsel in the
Judgment Creditors/Respondents Counsel’s Law office. In the supporting written
address, counsel identified an issue for determination, thus:
Whether
having regard to the circumstances of this case and the law, it is proper for
this Honourable Court to exercise its discretion in favour of the
Defendants/Judgment Debtors/Applicants.
Counsel submitted that the law is
settled on the principle that where no valid appeal is filed, an application
for stay of execution is incompetent. See MOBIL
further that by reason of Section 243(2) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)
a party aggrieved with the decision of the National Industrial Court may appeal
as of right to the Court of Appeal where his appeal borders on a fundamental
right question contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution as it relates to a
matter this court has jurisdiction over as per Section 254 of the Constitution.
See SHERATON HOTELS AND TOWERS LAGOS vs.
that in the instant case, the Applicants annexed a proposed Notice of appeal
and not a duly filed Notice of appeal as Exhibit B. Thus, it is apparent that
no valid...
To continue reading
Request your trial