CITIZENS COMPASS – Hon. Justice O. A. Onafowokan of the Ogun State High Court sitting in Abeokuta, has dismissed the ‘stay of execution’ application by the State House of Assembly Speaker, Olakunle Oluomo, against the judgment of the Court, which nullified the suspension of a former Deputy Speaker of the Assembly, Dare Kadiri.
The High Court 3, Abeokuta Judicial Division, refused the Speaker’s application while delivering a ruling on Wednesday, May 1, 2023, in suit no. AB/653/2022.
The Court also awarded a fine of N100,000 against the respondent/applicants, namely the Ogun State House of Assembly, Oluomo and the Clerk of the House.
The Court nullified the suspension of Kadiri, representing Ijebu North II State Constituency, and directed that all emoluments due to him be paid immediately by the House.
In September 2022, the House, at a plenary presided by the Speaker at the Assembly Complex, Oke-Mosan, Abeokuta, suspended Kadiri and another lawmaker, Solomon Osho, over allegations bordering on breach of the rights and privileges of the State legislature.
However, the House later pardoned and recalled Osho, while Kadiri approached the Court to challenge his suspension.
Apparently to stall the resumption of the lawmaker for legislative duties at the Assembly, the Speaker and other respondents applied for stay of execution of the court judgment.
In his ruling on the matter, Justice Onafowokan held that granting the application for stay of execution would not be just, saying the application was brought in bad faith to deprive the respondent of the fruit of his judgment.
The judge held that if the application was granted, unquantifiable hardship and anguish would undoubtedly be caused to and suffered by the respondent.
He further declared that the applicants “have not shown any special/ exceptional circumstances why the respondent who has not been paid his salaries, allowances and emoluments since September 2022 should continue to be so denied, not only before the expiration of his tenure of office on 29th May, 2023 or thereabout, but until the unknown time the appeal would be decided.”
The ruling partly read, “It suffices to say that it is trite that courts are not in the practice of granting an application for stay of execution as a matter of course. It is an equitable remedy granted at the discretion of the courts exercised judicially and judiciously.
“Before a court can grant an order of stay of execution thereby asking a successful or victorious litigant to tarry a while before enjoying the fruits of his victory, the applicant must show: exceptional/special circumstances; and substantial and arguable grounds of appeal which must be recondite.
“The court in exercising its discretion must take into consideration, the competing rights of the parties to justice, the prospect of the success of the appeal and the fact that a winning party has a right to the fruit of his judgment.
“It is trite that the judgment of a court is presumed correct until set aside; or special or exceptional circumstances shown to warrant its stay. As at the present, the purported suspension of the respondent having been set aside, it means the suspension never took place and his salaries, allowances and other emoluments must run as they were before the suspension.
He further declared that the applicants “have not shown any special/exceptional circumstances why the respondent who has not been paid his salaries, allowances and emoluments since September 2022 should continue to be so denied, not only before the expiration of his tenure of office on 29th May, 2023 or thereabout, but until the unknown time the appeal would be decided.”
The ruling partly read, “It suffices to say that it is trite that courts are not in the practice of granting an application for stay of execution as a matter of course. It is an equitable remedy granted at the discretion of the courts exercised judicially and judiciously.
“Before a court can grant an order of stay of execution thereby asking a successful or victorious litigant to tarry a while before enjoying the fruits of his victory, the applicant must show: exceptional/special circumstances; and substantial and arguable grounds of appeal which must be recondite.
“The court in exercising its discretion must take into consideration, the competing rights of the parties to justice, the prospect of the success of the appeal and the fact that a winning party has a right to the fruit of his judgment.
“It is trite that the judgment of a court is presumed correct until set aside; or special or exceptional circumstances shown to warrant its stay. As at the present, the purported suspension of the respondent having been set aside, it means the suspension never took place and his salaries, allowances and other emoluments must run as they were before the suspension.
“Therefore, having not appealed against Orders 3 and 5 (none of the grounds of appeal complains about the two orders) and having not given any reason much less credible reason(s) why the court should put their (applicants) compliance with the Orders and order (6) inclusive, on hold pending the hearing and determination of the appeal, I cannot but agree with the respondent’s counsel that the application was brought in bad faith to deprive the respondent of the fruit of his judgment.
“The applicants, except to merely state the principles for the grant of stay in their affidavit, as reproduced above, have not shown any special/exceptional circumstances why the respondent who has not been paid his salaries, allowances and emoluments since September 2022 should continue to be so denied, not only before the expiration of his tenure of office on 29th May, 2023 or thereabout but until the unknown time the appeal would be decided.
“Though the applicants have not shown what they would suffer if the application is not granted, it is the firm view of this court that they would not suffer nothing or lose anything whatsoever if the application is not granted.
“On the other hand, if the application is granted, unquantifiable hardship and anguish would undoubtedly be caused to and suffered by the respondent. That would not be just.
“The balance of convenience therefore weighs heavily in respondent’s favour and the justice of the case demands that the application be refused. The application fails and it is dismissed.
