The Respondents were apparently charged before various tribunals set up under Decree 18 of 1994 i.e. the Failed Banks (Recovery of Debts) and Financial Malpractices in Banks for diverse offences. At the beginning of their trial, each of them was granted bail under the conditions laid down in section 26 of the said Decree. But, as they were unable to fulfil the conditions of the bail, they were all kept in custody while their trial went on. Their trials in the various tribunals were not however concluded within the 21 days stipulated in section 4(1) of Decree 18 of 1994.

Believing that their trial beyond the 21 days stipulated in the Decree was illegal, null and void, they took a writ of Habeas Corpus for their release. On being served with the writ, the Appellants who were then the Respondents, filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the application. The objection was overruled and the Appellants appealed against the ruling. In the meantime, the High Court refused the application for stay of proceedings pending the hearing of the appeal filed in the Court below. Another application for stay of proceedings was then filed in the Court of Appeal on the same day when the earlier stay of proceedings was refused by the High Court. The Court of Appeal granted to the Appellants that subsequent application for a stay of proceedings. The order so made was immediately brought to the attention of the learned trial Judge before whom the writ of habeas corpus was lying. But the learned Judge in spite of the order made by the Court of Appeal decided to proceed with the hearing of the application for habeas corpus. Following the hearing, the learned trial Judge adjourned his ruling to the 12th of February 1999. On the 8th of February, the Appellants filed a motion in the Court of Appeal for arresting or suspecting the delivery of the ruling of the High Court on the 12/2/99 to which it was earlier adjourned for delivery.

This appeal is against the judgment of the Court below. In that judgment, the Court below upon the exercise of their discretion considered two issues suitable for the determination of the appeal. These are, first, whether the trial Court was right to have assumed supervisory jurisdiction over a matter that arose in the Failed Bank Tribunal created by Decree No.18 of 1994. And secondly, whether the trial Court ought to have stayed further proceedings in the hearing after it was informed that an application for stay of proceedings had been filed in the Court below. The Court below resolved these questions against the Appellants hence the appeal to this Court. I will later in this judgment dwell further on the decision of the Court below on issue I raised by the Court. However, on the second issue, which is, whether the trial Court was right to have continued with the hearing of the matter when it was aware that an application for staying the proceedings of the trial Court was pending in the Court of Appeal. The Court below took the view that it is clear that the trial Court was wrong not to have stayed proceedings in the Court having been notified of the pending application before that Court. However, the Court below felt that the urgency of the matter before it might have contributed to the error of the trial Court in carrying on with the matter before it. In any event, the appeal was dismissed by the Court below upon the two issues raised by it as aforesaid.

The Court below then went on to make further orders which were framed as follows:-