LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Stay of Execution — Balance of Convenience — Determining Factor
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is the balance of convenience that tilts the scale always in determining whether to grant a stay; if the court is not satisfied with the facts deposed in the applicant's affidavits, the balance of convenience is not in his favour.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwais, CJN, in Momah v. VAB Petroleum Inc. (2000) NLC-1831995(SC) at p. 6; Paras A–B.
"It is the balance of convenience that tilts the scale always in determining whether to grant a stay. The court below was not satisfied with the facts deposed to in the affidavits in support of the appellant's application. It could not, therefore, in good conscience, grant him stay. In other words the balance of convenience in the case was not in favour of the appellant."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The balance of convenience is the decisive factor in stay applications. The court weighs the hardship to the applicant if stay is refused against the hardship to the respondent if stay is granted. If the applicant’s supporting facts are unsatisfactory or unconvincing, the balance tilts against granting stay. The court must act in good conscience. The applicant must demonstrate that the balance clearly favours preserving the status quo. If the scales are even or favour the respondent, stay should be refused. The principle requires the court to consider the interests of both parties. The balance of convenience is not a mechanical test; it requires judicial evaluation of all circumstances. The applicant bears the burden of tipping the scale.