Alhaja Safurat Olufunke Yakubu & Anor V. Baale Sulaimah Y. O. Ashipa & Ors (1999)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PATS-ACHOLONU J.C.A.

This appeal arises from the Ruling of the learned trial Judge in a motion for stay of further execution of Judgment of Honourable Justice Martins delivered on 11/9/96. The Plaintiff appellants had claimed for declaration of Title, damages for trespass and injunction in respect of a piece and parcel of land. In course of trial of the main case in the court below counsel for the defendants died and the Ashipa family then briefed one John Rotimi Esq. to file an application for substitution of the said counsel. The learned trial Judge B. O. Martins in his Ruling dismissed the application for change of counsel. He also dismissed an application to substitute Yekini Ashipa for late Jimoh Oseni Ashipa and Gani Ashipa for late Daura Yaro. This made the defendants file an appeal and meanwhile filed a motion for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the appeal. Notwithstanding that an appeal had been filed and there was motion for stay of further proceedings Martins, J. continued with the case and went to close the case of the defendants for not continuing with the matter. At this stage the defendants in particular 1st, 5th and 6th defendant Respondents filed another appeal and filed yet another motion for stay of proceedings. The court went full ahead regardless of some interlocutory proceedings filed to checkmate him as he was heedless by hearing the parties to the end of this case. He invited address by counsel to the parties. In the course of this seeming chaotic state of proceedings, the counsel for the 1st, 5th and 7th defendants sought to dismiss the case on the ground that it is statute-barred and the plaintiffs had been guilty of Laches and acquiescence. Judgment was given to the Plaintiffs. The Respondents in the action as applicants in the court below brought a motion for an order staying the execution of that Honourable Court’s Judgment dated 31/10/96. The appellants as Respondents filed a counter affidavit rebutting some of the averments contained in the affidavit in support. In his considered Ruling the learned trial Judge held as follows:

“If indeed execution has already been carried out by the Respondents as they claim, the Respondents thus no longer have anything to lose, if however execution has not been fully carried out it is my opinion that further execution of the Judgment of Lordship Hon. Justice Martins be stayed. This order is not to be used by the applicants to retake possession which has been restored to the respondent but to halt further execution of the judgment. In consequence it is ordered that the Plaintiffs or agents, including the members of the Nigeria Police are hereby restrained from carrying out any further execution of the judgment of Honourable Justice Martins delivered on 11/9/96 pending the determination of the Appeal filed in this case”.

Dissatisfied with the nature of the Ruling and due to the turn out of events the Plaintiffs now appealed against that order staying further execution of the Judgment given earlier on by Marlins J., and filed 5 grounds in the notice of appeal. From these framed 2 issues which are:

1. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to have granted a stay of further execution in the circumstances of this case when there was nothing more to stay and the prayer granted was not sought for by the Respondents.
2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right to re-open the issue of trespass in her ruling when same had been decided by her learned brother in the main judgment which is now the subject of yet to be decided appeal filed by the Respondents”

The Respondents’ brief is very verbose and seeks to inculcate non essentials of the questions to be answered by the Court. Having understood the facts of the case the real issue to be determined is whether the exercise of discretion of stay of further execution ought to have been made if there is nothing left to execute the full execution having been duly carried out as it is alleged.

On the 1st issue the argument of the counsel for the appellants is that nothing is left to be stayed. In the Certificate of Execution that is Form D signed by the Bailiff the following words appeared…

“I did on the 12th of November, 1996 deliver full and peaceable possession to the Plaintiff of the premises named therein that is to say possession of the piece or pared of land lying situate and being Igbo pg. 31 Logbo Ayobo Village, Ikeja, Lagos State. Dated 14th of November, 1996”.

Was there then a full execution in accordance with the judgment of the court below. A stay of course cannot be granted for executed matter but the court can set aside an execution that is not carried out properly. This is not the prayer sought here. The appellant counsel in his submission cited the following authorities to show that to ground a stay there must be stated in the affidavit exceptional circumstances that would induce or convince the court to allow the application. In addition there must be substantial grounds of appeal all taken together to make the court accede to the request or prayer for stay. The following cases were cited Mbadagha v. Nwosu (1993) 9 NWLR (Pt.315) 110 at 115; Fakoya v. Taiwo (1995) 8 NWLR (Pt.413) 374; UBN v. Fajebe Foods (1994) 5 NWLR (Pt.344) 325. The cornerstone of the appellants’ case is that there is no more execution to be done because all the necessary execution in the spirit of the writ of fieri facias have been effectively carried out. It is most unfortunate that instead of arguing on the points raised in the issues for determination the Respondent more or less went to argue on the appeals that would be brought thereafter in this court for determination by the court. It is difficult to make sense out of the Respondents’ brief as counsel was more or less dwelling on the history of the land in dispute and who possessed it and in one point said that if the judgment was not nullified blood will flow. The whole exercise missed the point in contention.

What is there really to stay further? The court granted a stay of further execution but was asked for a mere stay of execution and injunction. The appellants argued that the court not being a charitable organisation should have restricted itself to what was asked of it, and cited Gbadamosi v. Alete (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt.273) 113 of 120 Nalsa and Team Associates v. NNPC (1991) 8 NWLR (Pt.212) 652 at 679 ACB. Ltd. v. Oba (1993) 7 NWLR (Pt.304) 173 of 181. The Respondents in their application asked for the following prayers.

“An order of this Honourable Court staying the Execution of this Honourable Court’s judgment dated 11/9/96 in this suit No.ID/1158/89 and also staying the Execution of all orders made thereunder i.e.

(a) Order Declaring the plaintiffs as the person entitled to the statutory or customary Right of the Land in dispute.

(b) An order Restraining any or All the Defendants/Appellants/Applicant either by themselves, Agent or servant or privies from remaining on the Land or trespassing on the Land which forms the subject-matter of this suit.

(c) An order Awarding N4.000.00 costs in favour of the Plaintiffs/Respondents.

(d) Any consequential order for possession, Attachment and or Fifa pending the determination of the appeal already filed in the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, Lagos dated the 27th day of September, 1996”.

In effect they were asking the court to review the whole judgment and constitute itself into an appellate to rehear the case and give them judgment. This is an intolerable stare of affair. The court below managed to make the order which is double edged in the following terms.

“If indeed execution has already been carried out by the respondents, as they claim, the Respondents thus no longer have nothing to lose. If however execution has not been fully carried out it is my opinion that further execution of the judgment of this Lordship Hon. Justice Martins be stayed”.

The purpose of stay of execution or further execution is to ensure that an appeal that is worthy and contains substance and there is reasonable probability that the judgment of the lower court may be upset is protected. In which case the court of Appeal or any appellate court is not left with dead baby if the res is destroyed or messed up and renders the appeal useless. The intention is to not and never be to punish the successful party by adopting all manner of legal tricks and technicalities to deprive him of his just judgment and fruits of his victory.

The discretion to order a stay must be used wisely and the language employed must not be dubious or capable of double meaning or capable itself to varied interpretation. It is important at this point to refer to a portion the judgment that gave rise to application for stay and injunction.

“I now ask, were the plaintiffs in possession when the defendants entered the land in dispute? My answer is yes, from the totality of the evidence before me. Have the defendants shown any better title to enable them escape from being liable to the plaintiffs in trespass? The answer to this is in the negative. The defendants did not deny going on the land. My view is fortified by the various receipts issued by the defendants to other people. See Exhibit ‘J’ by the 1st defendant. See Exhibits ‘J1′, J2′, J3′, J4’.

In a claim for a declaration of title the plaintiff can only succeed in obtaining the declaration from the court on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. In this case, the plaintiffs have positively proved that they are entitled to the declaration, having regard to the evidence led under 5 ways of proving title to land.”

The action was declaratory relief and damages for trespass. By full execution I understand that the losers are no longer on the land. Land is indestructible irrespective of who is in the land for the moment or at any time. It is immutable. It seems to me that the court below in its attempt to bend towards the respondents ostensibly to preserve the res made the order complained against. In a proper appeal on the main case if the Respondents succeed in appealing against the judgment the land will revert lo them and nothing would have been lost if it is a bare land. The order of the court has the ungainly features and characteristic of acceding to the prayers of people adjudged to be trespassers. Should they continue to be trespassers on the land? My answer is unequivocal No. It is important to tailor or link the order of the court below with the prayers asked for.

I have to look at the prayers of the Respondent in the court below to decide whether the application is equitable. I have already referred to it above. It does not strike me that they came wit clean hands. In the circumstances, it is my view that he order of the court below with regards to the stay and injunction ought not to have been made. I think he should have made an order striking out the application. I allow the appeal and set aside the Ruling of the court below and make an order striking out the application. There will be cost to appellant assessed N3,000.00.

Other Citations: (1999)LCN/0630(CA)