Stay of Proceedings

Fourthly every court has an inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings on the ground that they are an abuse of process or that they are frivolous and vexatious. By the same token, if the grounds of appeal the Applicants filed are frivolous, this Court will not stay execution pending such appeal.

It is trite and a well established general principle of law that stay of Proceeding/Execution will not be entertained unless an appeal has been lodged. See the case of NDLEA v. Okorodudu (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 492) 221, and Fatoyinbo v. Osadeyi (2002) 5 SC Part 11)1.
In other words, the jurisdiction to stay execution of a judgment can only be exercised pending a valid appeal. Accordingly in the absence of a pending appeal (and indeed a valid motion for leave to appeal) the lower Court in the case at hand did not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Dickson Ogunseinde Virya Farms Limited v. Societe Generale Bank Limited & Ors LGC(9/2/2018)D- E

Where a party to an arbitration agreement proceeds first to Court before resorting to arbitration as agreed, the Court leans towards granting an application for stay of proceedings pending arbitration provided the party applying did not file a defence or take steps in the proceedings other than entering appearance. Where a party delivers a defence or makes any application for extension of time, he will be deemed to have waived his right to insist on recourse to arbitration.
See Mainstreet Bank Capital Ltdsupra. 445, Kano State Urban Development Board v. Fanz Construction Co. Ltd (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt. 142) 1 and Osun State Government v. Dalami Nig. Ltd (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 818) 72, 93. The question that follows therefore is was there a waiver by the 1st and 2nd respondents of the right to insist on a recourse to arbitration? In answering the question, I shall start by considering the processes filed by the 2nd respondent. They are as follows: 1. A statement of defence. See pages 175-178 of the record. 2.
A written deposition of a witness in opposition to the motion for summary judgment etc. see pages 179-180 of the record. 3. Written address in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. See pages 183-185 of the record. The processes above were filed on the same day that the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court was filed, to wit; 25/7/2016. The 2nd respondent by the filing of those processes took steps in the matter and thereby waived his right to insist on a recourse to arbitration.
His counsel admitted this position at page 266 of the record when he stated before the Court that: “We concede on the 1st arm of our prayer because we have taken steps because we filed a statement of defence…” PER EKANEM, J.C.A.