LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Stay of Execution of Final Judgment
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of its own final judgment based on subsequent proceedings initiated in the High Court, as there is no right of direct appeal from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ogundare, JSC, in African Continental Bank Plc v. Obmiami Brick & Stone (Nig.) Ltd. (1993) NLC-2251992(SC) at p. 13; Paras D–F:
"Prayer (1) prays, in effect, that the judgment of this Court in Appeal No. SC. 186/1990 between the parties be stayed until the applicant's action (Suit No. E/125/92) filed in the Enugu High Court after the conclusion of the said appeal, is disposed of... This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal direct from the High Court. The applicant would, therefore, not have a right to apply direct to the Supreme Court for a prayer for stay that has been refused by the High Court."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle upholds the hierarchical structure of the court system and the doctrine of finality of judgments. Once the Supreme Court has rendered final judgment, it cannot be asked to stay execution of that judgment based on fresh proceedings commenced in a lower court. The principle prevents abuse of process whereby losing parties could perpetually delay enforcement of Supreme Court judgments by initiating new actions in lower courts. It reinforces that applications for stay must follow the proper appellate hierarchy and that Supreme Court judgments, being final, should not be held in abeyance by collateral proceedings.