IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE Y. M. HASSAN

DATE: 30TH JULY, 2026                                     SUIT NO: NICN/IB/64/2024

BETWEEN

1.         MR. SHOLA ADELAKUN

2.        ALHAJI FAWEMI RAFIUS ADISA

3.        MR. CLEMENT AKINLOLU

4.        MR. ADETONA ISIAKA

5.        MR. TAYO AREOYE

6.       MR. OLALEKAN OLAWUYI

7.        MR. EMMANUEL TALABI

8.        MR. SAHEED FAWEMI

9.       MR. OLUWASEUN OLUKADE

10.    MR. OLAJIDE FAWEMI

11.      MR. RAJI MUSILIU

12.     MR. SOLIU OLAMIDELE

13.     MR. SAMUEL O. FAGBOHUN

14.   

CLAIMANTS/ APPLICANTS

MR. IDOWU MUTIU

15.     MR. IBRAHIM FAWEMI                                       -----

16.    MR. OLAWOLE AJADI

17.     MR. BABALOLA NURENI

18.    MR. KOREDE ALIU

19.    MR. ADIGUN NURUDEEN

20.   MR. SULAIMON GANIYU

21.     MR. RAJI TAIWO

22.    MR. MURITALA LIADI

23.    MR. KAREEM AKANJI

24.   MR. OWOOLU JAMIU

25.    MR. AKINOLA AHMED

26.   MR. OMODARA ADEYINKA

27.    MR. AKEEM RAJI

28.   MOHAMMED SULEIMAN

29.   MR. BAMIDURO HAMEED OYENIYI

AND

1.      NATIONAL UNION OF ROAD TRANSPORT

WORKERS (NURTW)

2.     ROAD TRANSPORT EMPLOYERS

DEFENDANTS/ REPONDENTS

ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIA (RTEAN)                     -----

3.     PARK MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED

4.     GOVERNOR OF OGUN STATE

5.     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OGUN STATE

6.    WALE AJAYI (A.K.A NERO)

7.     TAJUDEEN GBADAMOSI

8.     MOJEED OGUNBIYI (A.K.A MOGANA)

 

REPRESENTATION

-  Kehinde Bamiwola Esq., with Victoria Morakinyo for the Claimants/

Respondents.

-  Gbeke Laditan Esq., for the 2^nd and 6^th Defendants. Also holding the brief

of Otunba Olumide Akinbinu for the 1^st and 8^th Defendants.

-  G.A.C. Korie, Senior State Counsel for the 3^rd to 5^th Defendants.

-  No legal representation for the 7^th Defendant.

RULING

INTRODUCTION

1.       This Ruling is at the instance of the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants who approached this Honourable Court praying for an order staying further proceedings in this matter pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal lodged against the interlocutory Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on 27^th day of January, 2026.

2. The grounds upon which this application is brought are as follows:

a)    The 1^st and 8^th Respondents being dis-satisfied with the Order of Court contained in the ruling dated 27^th day of January, 2026 has appealed against the said ruling vide a Notice of Appeal filed on the 10^th February, 2026.

b)    The crux of the Appeal is that the interlocutory Order has determined the substantive suit.

c)     That there is every likelihood that the Court will not deviate from the earlier ruling having determined the substantive suit at interlocutory stage.

d)    That a stay of Proceeding is necessary in Order not to render the Appeal nugatory.

3.       In support of the Application is 12 paragraphs Affidavit deposed to by one Mojeed Ogunbiyi, a transporter. Attached to the supporting Affidavit are documents marked as Exhibits A & B respectively. Equally filed in support of the Application is a written address dated 25^th day of March, 2026. In the said written address, learned Counsel to the Applicants, Akinbinu Olumide Fidelis, distilled a lone issue for determination which is whether or not the Applicants have placed sufficient facts before the court to entitle them to the relief sought.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS

4.       In arguing the issue, Counsel contended the Ruling delivered in respect of this suit has determined the substantive suit and leaving nothing for the court to pronounce upon at the trial.

5.       In further argument, Counsel submitted that while it is the law that an Appeal does not operate as a stay of proceedings where the hearing of the substantive suit will render the Appeal nugatory, it will not be out of place if the High Court would tarry for a while to enable the Appellate Court decide the Appeal one way or the other, hence this application.

6.       In another argument, Counsel stated that even where the ground of Appeal does not raise substantial issues, the Court in the exercise of its discretionary power can still grant a stay of proceeding or stay of execution. Reliance was placed on the case of LSDPC VS ADOLD STAMIN INT. NIG. LTD. v. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2000) 15 NWLR part 689, page 105 at 107-108.

7.       Finally, Counsel urged the court to stay further proceeding in this suit until the determination of the Appeal pending before the court of Appeal.

8.       Upon being served with the motion on notice and in response, the Claimant/Respondents filed in opposition Counter Affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by Shola Adelakun, the 1^st Claimant/Respondent herein. Filed in support of the Counter Affidavit is a written address dated 7^th day of April, 2026. In the said written address, learned Counsel to the Claimants/Respondents, Kehinde Bamiwola Esq., formulated also a lone issue which is whether the application for stay of proceeding is valid/competent without a valid notice of appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS

9.       In arguing the issue, learned Counsel to the Claimants/Respondents submitted that it is trite law that there is a distinction between an appeal as of right and appeal that is not as right. That an interlocutory appeal is not an appeal as of right. He submitted further that it is equally trite that, and appeal that is not as of right cannot be filed without seeking the leave of this Honourable Court. Reference was made to Section 243(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and Section 14 of 14 of the Court of Appeal Act, LFN, 2004.

10.      Learned Counsel argued and maintained that the Application praying for the stay of proceedings without a valid notice of Appeal is frivolous and a waste of the court's time and Applicant has failed to seek and obtain the requisite leave of court which has rendered the appeal invalid. Reference was made to the case of SKY BANK PLC v. IWU (2017) 16 NWLR (pt. 1590) page 24. And Order 64 Rule 14 of the Rules of this court.

11.      In another submission, Counsel stated that it is trite law that a stay of proceeding can only be granted when a valid appeal has been filed and he contended that the proposed appeal has no ground whatsoever to grant stay. In this respect, Counsel cited the case of NIGERIAN WESTMINSTER AND MARINE LIMITED v. O.F.T ENGINEERING LIMITED (2011) 8 (pt. 1249) 308 at 319, paras. C-E.

12.      In conclusion, Counsel submitted that the application for stay of proceedings filed by the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants is incompetent and considered time wasting and urged this Honourable Court to strike it out for being baseless and incompetent.

13.      On the other hand, the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants filed Further and Better Affidavit of 8 paragraphs deposed to by one Segun Taiwo. Attached to the Further and Better Affidavit is an annexure marked as Exhibit A. Equally filed is a written address in reply on point of law dated the 28^th day of April, 2026.

COURT'S DECISION

14.      I have gone through the affidavits of parties in respect of the application under consideration. I have equally gone through their respective addresses accompanying their affidavits. I shall be brief but succinctly in considering the application in the interest of justice. The cardinal issue that calls for determination is whether or not the Applicants have made out a case to justify a grant of the reliefs sought.

15.      The law is trite on the guiding principles in granting or refusing stay of proceeding. These principles include the following:

                               i.            There must be a competent appeal, where there is no competent pending appeal, there is both in law and in fact nothing to stay. The court will therefore not consider an application for stay of proceedings in respect of invalid-appeals.

                             ii.            The pending appeal must be arguable. This is decided by considering the grounds of Appeal filed. At this stage the Applicant needs not prove that the appeal will succeed. Once the Applicant could show that the appeal is arguable, a stay could be granted.

                          iii.            The Applicant must establish that there are special and exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of the applications. In this respect, see the case of FRN v. OGBULAFOR & ORS (2012) LPELR-7947.

16.      I must state here from the onset that an application for stay of proceeding being an equitable remedy, the Applicants must place before the court all materials facts to enable the court consider the application sympathetically. Indeed the court has a discretionary power to exercise in the matter and like every other discretionary power, it must exercise such power judicially and judiciously. In other words, the discretionary power must not be exercised in a vacuum but in relation to the existing facts of the particular case before the court. It is a cardinal principle of our law on stay of proceeding for the Applicants to satisfy the court that a valid and credible appeal was actually pending in Appeal Court. See the case of OWO & ORS v. ADETILOYE & ORS (1998) LPELR-6388(CA). However, the judicial process allows, in deserving instances, a stoppage of the process, even if temporally in the event of a meritorious application for stay of proceedings. See the case of ANAMCO v. FIRST MAUNA TRUST LTD (2000) 1 NWLR (pt. 640) page 311.

17.      Let me re-echo it here that application for stay is not granted as a matter of cause as it is not a mechanical relief slavishly following the filing of an appeal. It is indeed a matter of facts and a very hard one in the combined content. See the case of NIHA FISHING CO. LTD v. LAWINA CORPORATION (2008) 6-7 (SC, pt. 11) 200. The law for all time sake is settled on when such an application should be granted. It is only when an interlocutory appeal will dispose off the substantive case that a stay of proceedings will be granted. When and where grant of stay will unnecessarily delay the procedure, stay of proceedings will not be granted. See the case of OLUYEMO & ANOR v. TITILAYO & ORS (2009) LPELR-4773(CA).

18.      In the instant case, the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants are seeking for an order of this Honourable Court staying further proceedings pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal lodged against the Ruling of this Honourable Court delivered on the 27^th day of January, 2026. The 1st and 8th Defendants deposed in the supporting Affidavit particularly at paragraphs 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10, which for clarity and ease of reference, I shall reproduce same hereunder.

Paragraph 4 reads thus:

“That I was as well as the first Defendant were not satisfied with the ruling of Court delivered in the said Exhibit “A”.”

Paragraph 5 reads thus:

“That I know as of fact that we have instructed our Solicitor, Akinbinu Olumide Fidelis to Appeal against the said decision of Court.”

Paragraph 6 reads thus:

“That a notice of Appeal was duly filed and served on the Claimants. Attached herewith and marked Exhibit “B” is the copy of the Notice of Appeal.”

Paragraph 8 reads thus:

“That there is no other thing for the Court to determine at the trial.”

Paragraph 9 reads thus:

“That this application is necessary in Order not to allow the ruling of Court prejudice the final decision.”

Paragraph 10 reads thus:

“That Akinbinu Olumide Fidelis informed me and I verily believe him that it is impossible for the Court to make a contrary finding after hearing of the main suit.”

19.     However, the Claimants/Respondents in opposing the Application deposed in the Counter Affidavit particularly at paragraphs 6(iii), (iv) and (xi). I will for clarity and ease of reference, reproduce same hereunder.

Paragraph 6(iii) reads thus:

“That, there is no valid appeal pending against the Ruling of this Honorable Court delivered on the 27^th day of January, 2026, the ‘Ruling’, which the 1st & 8th Defendants/Applicants marked as Exhibit A.”

Paragraph 6(iv) reads thus:

“That, an incompetent ‘Notice of Appeal’ was filed on the 10^th day of February, 2026 without the permission of this Honourable Court.”

Paragraph 6(xi) reads thus:

“That, filing a Notice of Appeal is not a bar to proceedings.”

20.     As it stands now, from the Affidavit evidence reproduced above of both the Supporting Affidavit and Counter Affidavit, the onus is still on the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants to show and/or prove to the Court that they are entitled to the reliefs sought herein.

In this respect, the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants deposed in the Further and Better Affidavit in support of the motion at paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. I will again reproduce them hereunder for ease of reference.

 

Paragraph 3 reads thus:

“That contrary to depositions in paragraph 6 of the Counter Affidavit of the Claimants/Respondents, there exists a valid Appeal against the ruling of Court delivered on the 27^th day of January 2026 and the said Appeal has been entered at the Court of Appeal Ibadan as Appeal Number CA/IB/125/2026 between National Union of Road Transport Workers & 1OR and Mr. Shola Adelakun & ORS on the 26^th day of March, 2026.”

Paragraph 4 reads thus:

“That I attach herewith the revenue receipt for the deposit of the compulsory sum of N50,000 (Fifty Thousand Naira) for the prosecution of the Appeal and for the payment of any costs which may be ordered Pursuant to Order 8 Rule 11 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2021 dated 26^th March, 2026 as Exhibit “A”.”

Paragraph 5 reads thus:

“That the Appellants Brief was equally filed on the 13^th day of April, 2025 within the time prescribed by the rules of the Court of Appeal.”

21.      From the foregoing, it is now clear that appeal has been entered against the said ruling of this Honourable Court with Appeal No.: CA/IB/125/2026. Therefore, it is trite that once an appeal has been entered at the Court of Appeal, the trial court seize to have jurisdiction. In this regard, I refer to the case of ALLEN v. SODEINE & ANOR (2026) LPELR-83173(CA) per YARGATA BYENCHIT NIMPAR, JCA at pages 13-14, paras. B-E, where Court of Appeal held thus:

“the implication of the notice of appeal filed is that an appeal has been brought but not yet entered. For this Court to be properly seised, the record of appeal must be compiled and transmitted. An appeal is deemed filed when the notice of appeal is lodged at the trial Court, but it is only entered in this Court when the record is transmitted and the matter placed on the cause list. "An appeal is filed or brought as soon as the notice of appeal is filed at the Court below/trial Court as the case may be. See: Shodeinde v. Registered Trustees of Ahmadiyya Movement (2001) FWLR (pt.58) 1065. This means that an appeal is deemed to have been brought when the notice of appeal has been filed at the registry of the Court below or leave to appeal has been granted and before this Court has become seised of the whole proceedings. At this stage, both this Court and the Court below have concurrent jurisdiction to deal with interlocutory applications. However, the Rules of this Court require that such application should be made at the Court below in the first place for adjudication and ruling. An appeal is said to be entered in this Court, on the other hand, when the Record of Appeal has been transmitted to this Court and entered on the cause list. It is at this point in time when the Court below will cease to have jurisdiction to hear any application. After an appeal has been entered, all other applications can only be made to this Court though applications may be filed in the Court below for proper transmission to this Court. This is because once this Court is seised of the appeal, it has the sole jurisdiction to deal with the matter interlocutory or otherwise...”

See also the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MISSION HOUSE v. ALL STATES TRUST BANK PLC & ORS (2024) LPELR-61723(SC).

22.     Before I conclude, let me say that the submission of the Claimant/Respondents’ Counsel in the written address in support of the Counter Affidavit particularly at paragraph 3.7 inter alia that the appeal is incompetent and same has no ground whatsoever to grant stay, to say the least, is not within the purview of this Honourable Court to pronounce on the competence or otherwise of the said Appeal lodged at the Court of Appeal by the Applicants. Therefore, I say no more on this.

23.     To this end, and in view of the foregoing, it is my considered opinion that the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants have made out a case for the grant of this application. Consequently, I without further ado, resolve the issue for determination in favour of the 1^st and 8^th Defendants/Applicants and against the Claimants/Respondents and hold strongly that this application has merit and is accordingly granted as prayed. On that note, further proceedings in this suit with suit No.: NICN/IB/64/2024 is hereby stayed sine die pending the hearing and determination of the Appeal filed by the Applicants in the interest of justice.

24.     No order as to cost.

25.     Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

 

____________________________

Hon. Justice Y. M. Hassan

Presiding Judge.