LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Interlocutory Injunctions Pending Appeal – Special Circumstances Warranting Grant
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Special or strong circumstances warranting a stay of execution pending appeal include collateral circumstances or inherent matters that, unless stay is granted, would destroy the subject matter, render the Court of Appeal helpless or its orders nugatory, paralyze the litigant's constitutional right of appeal, or create situations where even if the appellant succeeds there could be no return to the status quo.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"When it is stated that the circumstances or conditions for granting a stay should be special or strong we take it as involving a consideration of some collateral circumstances and perhaps in some cases inherent matters which may, unless the order for stay is granted, destroy the subject matter of the proceedings and foist upon the Court, especially the Court of Appeal a situation of complete helplessness or render nugatory any order or orders of the Court of Appeal, or paralyse, in one way or the other the exercise by the litigant of his constitutional right of appeal or generally, provide a situation in which whatever happens to the case, and in particular even if the appellant succeeds in the Court of Appeal, there could be no return to the status quo."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle provides a comprehensive framework for identifying “special circumstances” that overcome the general presumption favoring execution of judgments pending appeal. The enumerated categories include: (1) Destruction of subject matter—where execution would eliminate or fundamentally alter the res (the thing in dispute) making appellate relief impossible. Example: demolition of disputed building, extraction of disputed minerals. (2) Court helplessness—where execution creates factual situations the appellate court cannot effectively remedy regardless of its legal powers. Example: dispersal of assets beyond recovery, transfers to bona fide purchasers for value. (3) Nugatory orders—where any relief the Court of Appeal might grant becomes meaningless or unenforceable due to changed circumstances. Example: specific performance becomes impossible, declarations become academic. (4) Paralysis of appeal right—where the practical effect of execution makes the constitutional right to appeal illusory even though technically preserved. Example: appellant becomes unable to pursue appeal due to execution consequences. (5) No return to status quo—where circumstances become so altered that restoration becomes impossible even with appellate success. The principle recognizes that effective appellate justice requires preserving the possibility of meaningful relief. Special circumstances exist when execution pending appeal would transform the appeal from a genuine remedy into an empty procedural gesture. Courts must consider both “collateral circumstances” (external factors like third party rights, market conditions) and “inherent matters” (intrinsic characteristics of the subject matter or relief). The test is forward-looking: what will be the practical situation if execution proceeds and the appeal succeeds? If that scenario reveals inability to provide effective relief, special circumstances exist justifying a stay to preserve the substance of appellate rights.