LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Consequential Orders – Jurisdiction to Make After Dismissing Application – Preservation of Res Pending Appeal
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
There can be no doubt that the consequence of the refusal to order stay of execution in the present case is, by inference, that the respondent, as judgment creditor, is entitled to enforce the judgment in his favour. In my opinion, therefore, the order that the appellant should deposit the judgment debt in court to be kept in a bank account does not detract from the dismissal of the application for stay of execution. It appears to me that the consequential order is, in effect or by implication, the same as an order for stay of execution with a condition that the judgment debt should be paid into court instead of the appellant's title deeds being deposited in court as prayed. For if the consequential order is complied with, the respondent will not be in a position to execute the foreign judgment before determination of the appeal in the court below. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction under section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap. 75 to have made the consequential order.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwais, CJN, in Momah v. VAB Petroleum Inc. (2000) NLC-1831995(SC) at p. 11; Paras B–D.
"There can be no doubt that the consequence of the refusal to order stay of execution in the present case is, by inference, that the respondent, as judgment creditor, is entitled to enforce the judgment in his favour. In my opinion, therefore, the order that the appellant should deposit the judgment debt in court to be kept in a bank account does not detract from the dismissal of the application for stay of execution. It appears to me that the consequential order is, in effect or by implication, the same as an order for stay of execution with a condition that the judgment debt should be paid into court instead of the appellant's title deeds being deposited in court as prayed. For if the consequential order is complied with, the respondent will not be in a position to execute the foreign judgment before determination of the appeal in the court below. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction under section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap. 75 to have made the consequential order."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
After dismissing a stay application, the court may still make consequential orders preserving the res pending appeal. Such orders—like requiring deposit of judgment debt into court—do not contradict the dismissal; they effectively condition enforcement. Section 16 of the Court of Appeal Act empowers such orders. The court balances the judgment creditor’s right to enforce with protecting the appeal from being rendered nugatory. Consequential orders are permissible where they give effect to the judgment without detracting from the dismissal. This preserves the status quo without granting formal stay.