by 
Counsel maintained that the Applicant/Garnishee had not filed a motion for stay of execution before the Appeal Court. What was filed, was for leave to appeal against the decision of this a Court.That it was only after the subsequent execution did the Counsel become awoken to the possibilities that execution can indeed be levied against his client.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima expressed thus;
“In order for an applicant to succeed in vacating, setting aside and or varying an order of a Court, he must establish that there are special, exceptional and cogent circumstances necessitating such because usually, a Court would not generally resile from its previous orders.
“By Order 65 Rule 8(3) of the Rules of this court, the mere filing of a notice of appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings or a stay of execution.
“On page 11 of the said ruling of 21/3/2018, the reference to which is important to this ruling, an appeal before the Court of Appeal does not operate as a stay but the Court of Appeal may either impose conditionally or unconditionally, such directions that are in accordance with the rules of court.
“I agree with the Execution Creditors that the Garnishee/Applicant was under compulsion and abide by the decision of this Court ordered since the 21/3/2018. Where it is obviously now clear that they refused to so comply, the chances of being granted further judicial discretions are slim and unlikely.
“Therefore, question 2 above on whether it was wrongful to execute the order of 21/3/2018 is obviously in the negative. The answer remains unchanged whether or not a notice of appeal and a stay of execution was filed subsequent to the granting of the order Absolute.
“Ultimately, I find that the application along with the reliefs sought, are baseless and same are denied and accordingly dismissed without costs.
