BEST LAW REPORT SUBSCRIPTION PRICE!!

  • Pamol (Nig) Ltd v. Illah Agric Project Ltd
  • 243
  • 2005-01-24
  • ₦ 200
  • Buy Now

Pamol (Nig) Ltd v. Illah Agric Project Ltd

PAMOL (NIG) LIMITED

V

ILLAH AGRIC PROJECT LTD

COURT OF APPEAL

( BENIN DIVISION )

M.SAIFULLAHI MUNTAKA-COOMASIE JCA ( Presided )

KUMAI BAYANG AKAAHS JCA

AMINA  ADAMU AUGIE JCA (Read the Lead Ruling)

CA/B/144M/2002

THURSDAY, 11TH MARCH, 2003

COURT - Discretionary power of to grant or refuse stay of execution - How exercised

COURT - Stay of execution in judgment involving money - Terms upon which will grant

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution of judgment involving money - Terms upon which court will grant

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution - Grant of - Exceptional circumstances therefore - Burden to prove the existence of - On whom lies

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution - Grant of - Need to take competing rights of parties to justice into consideration before

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution - Grant of - Valid ground or exceptional circumstances warranting same - Whether impecuniosity per se constitutes

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution - Grant of in monetary judgment - Need to consider whether it would be difficult to secure the refund of judgment debt from the judgment creditor if the appeal succeeds

JUDGMENT AND ORDERS - Stay of execution - Ground of - Proof of special or exceptional circumstances therefore - Need to depose in an affidavit facts showing the special or exceptional circumstances

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -  Stay of execution - Grant of - Valid ground or exceptional circumstances warranting same - Whether impecuniosity per se constitutes same

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -  Stay of execution - Ground of - Proof of special or exceptional circumstances therefore - Need to depose in an affidavit facts showing the special or exceptional circumstances

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Judgment involving money - Stay of execution of - Terms upon which court will grant

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Applicant therefore -  Burden on

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Discretionary power of court to grant or refuse stay - How exercised

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Grant of Exceptional circumstances therefore - Burden to prove the existence of - On whom lies

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Grant of - Need to take competing rights of parties to justice into consideration

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Grant of in monetary judgment - Need to consider whether it would be difficult to secure the refund of judgment debt from the judgment creditor if the appeal succeeds

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Stay of execution - Grant or refusal of - Guiding principles for

Issue:

Whether the applicant had shown enough special circumstances to warrant the Court of Appeal exercising its discretion in applicant’s favour by staying the execution of the judgment of Hon. Justice M.I. Edokpayi, sitting at Abudu High Court, Edo State delivered on the 17 th day of October, 2000, in suit  No. HAB/32/96 pending the hearing and the determination of the appeal filed on 18th February, 2002 against the judgment.

Facts:

The applicant herein, the defendant in the lower court brought an application before the Court of Appeal praying for an order of the court staying execution of the judgment of the High Court of Justice, Edo State delivered on the 17th day of October, 2000, in suit No. HAB/32/96 pending the hearing and determination of the appeal filed on 18th February , 2002 against the judgment.

It was the applicant’s claim that the trial court erred in law in proceeding to give judgment against it contrary to section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution in view of the fact that it was not given an opportunity to state its case. In other words, it was denied fair hearing as it was not served with hearing notices particularly after the 13th of March, 2000, when its counsel unceremoniously withdrew his appearance from the case and that from that date till the date of judgment, the applicant was not represented in the matter.

The applicant equally claimed that there exists some special or exceptional circumstances why his application should be granted by the Court of Appeal.