LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Stay of Execution – Disciplinary Jurisdiction of Appellate Court – Power to Prevent Frustration of Pending Proceedings
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where a court's jurisdiction is invoked to undo what has been done so that proceedings before it may not be frustrated or that it may not be presented with a fait accompli in regard to it, that is an invocation of the disciplinary power of the court. This is not the same as the jurisdiction and power of the court invoked to grant a stay of execution of a judgment pending an appeal. Different considerations apply. In the former, the major consideration is whether the alleged 'offending' party had tried to 'steal a match', while in the latter the principal considerations are whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted and the dictates of the balance of justice.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in International Bank for West Africa Ltd. & Anor v. Pavex International Company (Nigeria) Ltd. (2000) NLC-781994(SC) at pp. 40–41; Paras A–C.
"Where a court's jurisdiction is invoked to undo what has been done so that proceedings before it may not be frustrated or that it may not be presented with a fait accompli in regard to it, that is an invocation of the disciplinary power of the court. This is not the same as the jurisdiction and power of the court invoked to grant a stay of execution of a judgment pending an appeal. Different considerations apply. In the former, the major consideration is whether the alleged 'offending' party had tried to 'steal a match', while in the latter the principal considerations are whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted and the dictates of the balance of justice."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
There is a distinction between a stay of execution pending appeal and invocation of a court’s disciplinary jurisdiction. Disciplinary jurisdiction is invoked to undo actions that would frustrate pending proceedings or present a fait accompli. The key consideration is whether the party attempted to “steal a match”—act unilaterally to pre-empt the court’s decision. For stay of execution, the considerations are whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory and the balance of justice. This distinction ensures courts can protect their processes from abuse without conflating different remedial frameworks.