₦airaland Forum

By Amebo Lawyer, Esq. | Abuja| 15 November 2025

The Supreme Court has overturned decisions of both the Aba High Court and the Court of Appeal, which had granted a stay of execution to a judgment debtor on the ground that he was too poor to pay.

In the case of Nwabueze v. Nwosu (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 88) 257, the apex court held that impecuniosity alone is not an “exceptional circumstance” that can justify halting the enforcement of a valid judgment.

The Loan, the Judgment and a Sudden Plea of Poverty

The dispute began when Mr. Nwabueze sued to recover ₦48,125.56, a friendly loan he said he had given to Mr. Nwosu at the latter’s request. The Aba High Court agreed and ordered repayment.

But the same day he filed his appeal, the defendant also applied for a stay of execution, claiming he was too financially strained to both pay the debt and pursue the appeal. He blamed a poor economy and a struggling haulage business.

Despite listing several assets capable of satisfying the judgment, he insisted that immediate payment would cripple him.

Shockingly, the trial court agreed.

Lower Courts Focused on Poverty — Supreme Court Says That Was Wrong

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, reasoning that forcing the debtor to pay might “frustrate his constitutional right of appeal.”

But the Supreme Court disagreed and rebuked both courts for misdirecting themselves.

Justice Obaseki, delivering a key portion of the unanimous judgment, stated bluntly:

“The desire to exercise one’s constitutional right of appeal, without more, is not a vital consideration in granting a stay. Poverty simpliciter is not an exceptional circumstance.”

Courts Must Protect Judgment Creditors, Not Shield Debtors Without Cause

The justices stressed that a successful litigant is entitled to the fruits of his judgment, and a stay should only be granted where there are truly exceptional circumstances, such as:

* when execution would destroy the subject matter of the appeal,
* or leave the appellate court helpless,
* or make a return to the status quo impossible if the appellant later succeeds.

None of those applied in this case.

Justice Craig added:

“The court will not give with one hand and take away with the other.”

And Justice Uwais noted that having assets to satisfy a judgment is not a reason to delay execution; it is a reason to refuse a stay.

Appeal Allowed, Judgment to Be Enforced

The Supreme Court concluded that neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeal exercised discretion judicially and judiciously. They relied on irrelevant claims and ignored established principles.

The stay was therefore set aside, clearing the way for the creditor to finally enforce the judgment.

The ruling reinforces a long-standing message:

A judgment debtor cannot simply cry “I’m broke” to avoid paying. Exceptional circumstances, not sympathy, control the law.

So both hired lawyers for high court, appeal court and supreme court because of N48k debt. How much did the lawyers charge? How much was spent on transport and hotel bills?

I think the guy who went to court to recover 48k didn't need the money. He only wanted to teach his dishonest friend and debtor a lesson

Ruke1991:
So both hired lawyers for high court, appeal court and supreme court because of N48k debt. How much did the lawyers charge? How much was spent on transport and hotel bills?

I think the guy who went to court to recover 48k didn't need the money. He only wanted to teach his dishonest friend and debtor a lesson

And the friend had an Ego problem. Well! Sometimes, litigating is not about speaking grammar or winning cases. Or, in fact, showcasing your legal dexterity.

It's about forging the best possible outcome for your client. As a debt management expert, I have seen instances where there is a judgment against a debtor with an award of monthly interest of 3 or 5%, depending on the judgment.

Rather than settle and nip the rolling interest on the board, the counsel for the judgment debtor will rather choose to appeal on technical grounds, knowing fully well that no court will ask a debtor not to repay the money he/she took as a loan and benefited from. At best, a re-trial will be ordered.

By the time they are done at Appeal, a loan that was a few couple of thousand or millions has compounded, further complicating the problems of the debtor.

But then, what do I know?

What you see here is the principal element. The accrued interest and ancillaries are not captured. The cumulative sum might shock you.

dalitigator:
And the friend had an Ego problem. Well! Sometimes, litigating is not about speaking grammar or winning cases. Or, in fact, showcasing your legal dexterity.

It's about forging the best possible outcome for your client. As a debt management expert, I have seen instances where there is a judgment against a debtor with an award of monthly interest of 3 or 5%, depending on the judgment.

Rather than settle and nip the rolling interest on the board, the counsel for the judgment debtor will rather choose to appeal on technical grounds, knowing fully well that no court will ask a debtor not to repay the money he/she took as a loan and benefited from. At best, a re-trial will be ordered.

By the time they are done at Appeal, a loan that was a few couple of thousand or millions has compounded, further complicating the problems of the debtor.

But then, what do I know?

What you see here is the principal element. The accrued interest and ancillaries are not captured. The cumulative sum might shock you.

I can understand it better with the insight you gave because it looked stupid to me that anyone would hire a lawyer from high court, appeal court and supreme court because of N48,000 debt