LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Execution – Sale of Property – Validity of Notice of Sale Following Stay of Execution
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The facts again show that the properties had been advertised for sale on 17/12/91 and that it was because of the Appellant's motion for a stay of execution that the sale was suspended until that motion was disposed on 8/1/92, and the sale conducted on 9/1/92. That was the right thing to do. The notice of sale was never withdrawn or cancelled by anyone. There was therefore no need to have issued a fresh notice of sale when the Appellant's motion was finally disposed of.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Kutigi, JSC, in Akpunonu v. Beakart Overseas & Ors (2000) NLC-601995(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras E–B.
"The facts again show that the properties had been advertised for sale on 17/12/91 and that it was because of the Appellant's motion for a stay of execution that the sale was suspended until that motion was disposed on 8/1/92, and the sale conducted on 9/1/92. That was the right thing to do. The notice of sale was never withdrawn or cancelled by anyone. There was therefore no need to have issued a fresh notice of sale when the Appellant's motion was finally disposed of."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Where a notice of sale has been validly issued but execution is temporarily suspended due to a stay application, no fresh notice is required upon disposal of the stay application. The original notice remains effective unless withdrawn or cancelled. The suspension merely pauses the execution process; it does not vitiate the notice. Requiring a fresh notice would create unnecessary delay and expense. The proper approach is to continue with the sale once the stay is lifted, relying on the original notice. This promotes efficiency in execution proceedings.