Introduction
“I have appealed against the judgment, so I do not have to comply with it.”
This is a position that some litigants take after an unfavourable judgment or court order has been made against them.
The reasoning may appear straightforward: if the decision is being challenged before a higher court, why should a party be required to comply with a decision that may eventually be overturned?
Under Nigerian law, however, filing an appeal does not, by itself, suspend the operation of a judgment or court order.
This is an important distinction. A party dissatisfied with a decision has a right to appeal where an appeal lies. However, the exercise of that right does not ordinarily give the party a licence to disregard the decision of the court below.
A Judgment or Court Order Remains Binding Until It Is Set Aside or Stayed
The law is firmly settled that a judgment or Order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, whether rightly or wrongly made, remains valid, binding and enforceable until it is set aside by a competent Court or stayed by an Order of the appropriate appellate Court.
The important point is that a litigant cannot unilaterally decide that a judgment or order is wrong and therefore treat it as having no legal effect.
In OMOJOLA & ANOR v. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR EKITI STATE & ORS (2025) LPELR-81224(CA) (PP. 15–15, PARAS. C–E), the Court of Appeal held:
“It is trite that judgments and orders of Courts are valid and binding on the parties until they are either vacated, in the case of orders, or set aside on appeal, in the case of judgments. See WESTAF PROPERTIES LTD v SANI & ANOR (2022) LPELR – 58782 (CA); EKANEM EKPO OTU v A.C.B INTERNATIONAL BANK PLC & ANOR.”
The effect of this decision is straightforward. A judgment or order does not lose its binding character simply because one of the parties is dissatisfied with it or has challenged it on appeal.
The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the principle more recently in BARUWA & ORS. v. ALABI (2026) LPELR-83678(CA) (P. 21 – 22, PARAS. F – C), holding:
“It is settled law that a judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction, however erroneous or even if alleged to have been obtained by fraud, remains valid, subsisting, and binding until it is set aside by a competent Court. See P.D.P. v. Okorocha (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 205 at 256, para. D. Consequently, where such a judgment exists, a party cannot, without first successfully setting it aside, seek substantive relief that is inconsistent with or that undermines the continued validity of that judgment. See Edem v. Ishie (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1869) 507 at 527 – 528, paras. H – B.”
The significance of BARUWA & ORS. v. ALABI (supra) is particularly important.
The Court expressly recognised that the principle applies even where the judgment is alleged to be erroneous or to have been obtained by fraud.
In other words, a party cannot simply say that a judgment is wrong, or even that it was obtained by fraud, and then proceed as though the judgment does not exist.
The judgment must first be successfully challenged before a competent court.
Does Filing an Appeal Automatically Stay Execution?
No.
This is perhaps the most important point in this article.
The filing of an appeal does not, by itself, suspend the execution of the judgment or order being appealed against.
The Court of Appeal recently addressed this issue directly in ECO BANK (NIG.) PLC v. GARBA & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81900(CA) (PP. 4–5, PARAS. D–C).
The Court held:
“This Court deems it imperative to observe, ab initio, that in both the withdrawn motion of the 22nd day of May, 2023, and the extant motion of the 22nd day of May, 2025, the Appellant/Applicant did not, at any time, seek an order for stay of execution of the judgment delivered by this Court or the lower Court. Consequently, the averments contained in paragraphs 7 and 11(vii) of the Respondents’ counter-affidavit, upon which heavy reliance has been placed, are found to be extraneous to the determination of the present application. It must also be pointed out to the Applicant that neither the filing nor the possible grant of the instant application operates, expressly or by implication, as a stay of execution. The case of JOSIAH CORNELIUS LTD & ORS VS EZENWA (1996) LPELR-1632 (SC) (PAGE 24 PARA A) is instructive, wherein the Court held per OGUNDARE, JSC as follows: “The law is clear, that is, that an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution or of proceedings. Any party appealing against the interlocutory decision of a Court is under a duty to apply for stay of further proceedings, pending appeal, if he believes the result of his appeal will affect further proceedings in the matter.” See also the case of ODOGWU VS ODOGWU (1992) LPELR-2229 (SC) (PAGE 19 PARA E).”
Per ADEBUKUNOLA ADEOTI IBIRONKE BANJOKO, JCA (Pp. 4–5, Paras. D–C).
This is a particularly useful authority because the Court made the position explicit: neither the filing nor the possible grant of an application operates, expressly or by implication, as a stay of execution.
Where a party wants to prevent the enforcement of a judgment pending an appeal, the appropriate order for stay must be sought.
What Does the Supreme Court Say?
The Supreme Court has equally reaffirmed that an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution.
In APC & ORS v. KARFI & ORS (2017) LPELR-47024(SC) (PP. 53–53, PARAS. B–D), the Supreme Court held:
“Even where an appeal had been lodged against the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal, Section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, categorically and in no mistaken terms, tells or warns the litigants that appeal per se shall not operate as stay of execution. See also Vaswani Trading Co. v. Savalakh & Co. (1972) 7 NSCC 692, (1972) 12 SC 77, which interpreted Section 24 of the Supreme Court Act almost in pari materia with Section 17 of the Court of Appeal Act.”
Per EJEMBI EKO, JSC (Pp. 53–53, Paras. B–D).
Although this decision is older than the 2025 and 2026 Court of Appeal authorities discussed above, it remains useful because it directly addresses the statutory position concerning appeals and stay of execution.
More importantly, the recent decision in ECO BANK (NIG.) PLC v. GARBA & ANOR (supra) expressly reaffirmed the same principle.
Filing an Appeal and Obtaining a Stay Are Two Different Things
It is therefore important to distinguish between an appeal and a stay of execution.
An appeal challenges the correctness of a judgment or order.
A stay of execution suspends the operation or enforcement of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
They are not the same thing.
A party may have filed a valid appeal and still be required to comply with the judgment or order being challenged.
This is why the mere statement:
“I have appealed against the judgment.”
does not necessarily answer the question:
“Has the judgment been stayed?”
The answer to the first question may be yes while the answer to the second remains no.
What If the Order Is an Injunction?
The issue becomes particularly important where the court order is an injunction or directs a party to do or refrain from doing something.
For example, a court may order a party:
- to stop construction on a property;
- not to sell or transfer a particular property;
- to maintain the status quo;
- to deliver possession;
- to refrain from interfering with another person’s possession;
- to pay a specified sum; or
- to comply with another specific direction of the court.
If the party believes that the order is wrong, the proper remedy is to challenge it through the appropriate legal process.
The party cannot ordinarily decide that the order should be ignored simply because an appeal has been filed.
The principle in OMOJOLA & ANOR v. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR EKITI STATE & ORS (supra) is directly relevant here: orders of courts remain valid and binding until they are vacated, while judgments remain binding until they are set aside on appeal.
What If You Believe the Judgment Is Wrong?
This is where BARUWA & ORS. v. ALABI (supra) becomes particularly important.
The Court of Appeal stated that the principle applies even where the judgment is alleged to be erroneous or to have been obtained by fraud.
A litigant may firmly believe that the court made a mistake.
The litigant may believe that the court misunderstood the evidence.
The litigant may believe that the court applied the wrong law.
The litigant may even allege that the judgment was obtained by fraud.
But the existence of those complaints does not, by itself, extinguish the judgment.
As the Court held in BARUWA & ORS. v. ALABI (supra):
“It is settled law that a judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction, however erroneous or even if alleged to have been obtained by fraud, remains valid, subsisting, and binding until it is set aside by a competent Court. See P.D.P. v. Okorocha (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1323) 205 at 256, para. D. Consequently, where such a judgment exists, a party cannot, without first successfully setting it aside, seek substantive relief that is inconsistent with or that undermines the continued validity of that judgment. See Edem v. Ishie (2023) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1869) 507 at 527 – 528, paras. H – B.”
The practical lesson is clear: the validity of a subsisting judgment is not determined by the unilateral opinion of the person against whom it was made.
What Happens If You Disobey the Order While the Appeal Is Pending?
A pending appeal does not automatically give a party immunity from the consequences of disobeying a subsisting order.
The Supreme Court has, however, recognised an important qualification concerning enforcement during the pendency of an appeal.
In EZENWO v. FESTUS & ORS (2019) LPELR-81573(SC) (PP. 7–8, PARAS. F–A), the Supreme Court held:
“In Vaswani T. C. v. Savalakh & Co. (1972) LPELR-3460 (SC), it was held that even though the subsistence of appeal against the decision of a lower Court per se would not operate as stay of execution, it may amount to contempt of the appeal Court for the lower Court to proceed with enforcement of its judgment during the subsistence of the appeal, the fact which the lower Court is seised of.”
Per EJEMBI EKO, JSC (Pp. 7–8, Paras. F–A).
This qualification is important.
The rule is not that the filing of an appeal automatically stops every step that may otherwise be taken in relation to a judgment.
Rather, the circumstances of the particular case may determine whether proceeding with enforcement while an appeal is pending raises issues concerning the authority or jurisdiction of the appellate court or amounts to contempt of that court.
The key point remains that the party appealing should not simply assume that the appeal itself has suspended the judgment.
What If You Have Applied for a Stay?
Another important distinction is between applying for a stay and obtaining a stay.
A party may file an application seeking a stay of execution.
But until the appropriate court makes the necessary order, the mere filing of the application does not automatically mean that the judgment has been stayed.
This was expressly recognised in ECO BANK (NIG.) PLC v. GARBA & ANOR (supra), where the Court stated:
“It must also be pointed out to the Applicant that neither the filing nor the possible grant of the instant application operates, expressly or by implication, as a stay of execution.”
Therefore, a party should not assume that the mere existence of a pending stay application automatically suspends the operation of the judgment.
What Should You Do After Filing an Appeal?
If you have appealed against a judgment or order and believe that its enforcement should be suspended pending the appeal, the appropriate approach will generally involve the following:
1. File the appeal
Where an appeal lies, take the necessary appellate steps within the applicable time.
2. Consider whether a stay is necessary
Determine whether execution or continued proceedings will cause prejudice that makes a stay necessary pending the determination of the appeal.
3. Apply for the appropriate order
Where necessary, apply for a stay of execution, stay of proceedings or other appropriate relief.
4. Do not assume that filing the appeal has suspended the order
The authorities make it clear that an appeal does not, by itself, operate as a stay.
5. Comply with the subsisting order unless it has been stayed or otherwise affected
Unless the appropriate court has stayed, vacated, discharged or varied the order, it ordinarily remains binding.
A Simple Example
Imagine that a High Court makes an order restraining a defendant from carrying out construction on a disputed property.
The defendant believes the court was wrong and immediately files an appeal.
Can the defendant continue construction simply because the appeal has been filed?
Ordinarily, no.
The filing of the appeal does not, by itself, suspend the order.
If the defendant believes that construction should be permitted pending the appeal, the appropriate course is to seek the necessary order from the competent court.
Continuing construction in disregard of the subsisting order may expose the defendant to consequences for contempt, depending on the circumstances of the case.
The same principle can apply to other forms of injunctions and orders requiring a party to do or refrain from doing a particular act.
The Key Distinction: Challenge the Order, Do Not Simply Ignore It
The law therefore draws a clear distinction between challenging a judgment and disobeying a judgment.
A party who believes that a judgment is wrong can appeal.
A party who believes that execution should be suspended can apply for a stay.
A party who believes that an order should be vacated or discharged can apply to the appropriate court for that relief.
But the party cannot ordinarily make a unilateral decision that the order has ceased to have effect simply because an appeal has been filed.
The recent decisions of the Court of Appeal in OMOJOLA & ANOR v. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR EKITI STATE & ORS (2025) LPELR-81224(CA), ECO BANK (NIG.) PLC v. GARBA & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81900(CA) and BARUWA & ORS. v. ALABI (2026) LPELR-83678(CA) reinforce this position.
Conclusion
So, can you ignore a court order because you have appealed against it?
Generally, no.
The filing of an appeal does not, by itself, suspend the operation of a judgment or court order.
A judgment or order of a competent court remains valid and binding until it is appropriately set aside, vacated, discharged or stayed.
The Court of Appeal’s decisions in OMOJOLA & ANOR v. EXECUTIVE GOVERNOR EKITI STATE & ORS (2025) LPELR-81224(CA) and BARUWA & ORS. v. ALABI (2026) LPELR-83678(CA) reaffirm the principle that a judgment or order remains binding notwithstanding a party’s contention that it was wrongly made.
Similarly, ECO BANK (NIG.) PLC v. GARBA & ANOR (2025) LPELR-81900(CA) makes clear that neither the filing nor the possible grant of an application operates, expressly or by implication, as a stay of execution.
The practical lesson is therefore straightforward:
If you disagree with a court order, challenge it. If you need its operation suspended, apply for a stay. But do not simply ignore it because you have appealed.
An appeal gives a party the opportunity to challenge the correctness of a decision. It does not, by itself, give the party permission to disregard a subsisting order of the court.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for general information and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for advice from a qualified legal practitioner based on the specific facts and circumstances of a particular case.
The law and applicable procedural requirements may differ depending on the nature of the judgment or order, the court that made it, the stage of the proceedings, the nature of the appeal and the circumstances surrounding any application for stay.
Anyone affected by a court judgment or order, or who has filed or intends to file an appeal against such a decision, should obtain appropriate legal advice before taking any step that may amount to non-compliance with the order.
If you found this helpful, please share it on social media — it only takes a click.