On Monday, June 10, 1974, this Court heard arguments for and against the motion brought by the applicants on the Ruling of Atake, J., given on January 7, 1974, in consolidated suits No. W/22/68 and No. W/28/69 in which the learned trial Judge, in answer to the applicants' application before him for a stay of execution of the Judgment and orders and costs awarded against them in the two consolidated suits, made the following orders:
-
i
"That the order of forfeiture and' injunction made in the judgment of this Court is hereby stayed only in respect of the area occupied and settled on by the applicants which area is shown in the plan T.J.M. 1609 (Exhibit 1) and which area to be more precise is all that area in the said plan T.J.M. 1609 (Exhibit 1) verged pink but less the areas
-
2
That the applicants shall not, pending the determination of their said appeal be at liberty to lease or let or in any ether way alienate that part of the land verged pink in plan T.J.M. 1609 (Exhibit 1) on which they are now allowed to continue their settlement and occupation as ordered in (1) above. Any alienation so made or any attempt to make one shall not only be deemed a contempt of the order of this Court punishable by imprisonment for 6 months with hard labour for each occasion on which it is made but shall be without effect whatsoever.
-
3
That the costs awarded against the applicants in this suit be paid into Court within 30 days from today.
-
4
That on the respondents entering into Bond verified with an appropriate affidavit to refund the costs in the event of the applicants succeeding on appeal the Higher Registrar of this Court shall be at liberty to pay out the costs to the respondents."
In support of the present motion asking that this Ruling be set aside, Dr. Odje, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial Judge should have granted as prayed a stay of execution of the judgment of the Warri High Court delivered on November 24, 1973.
