This was an appeal and application for a stay of execution of the order granted in the initial application. The respondent argued that the appeal was incompetent because it lacked a certificate from the Court of Appeal certifying that it concerned a question of great public or general importance. The respondent also argued that the execution was complete because he was in sole occupation of the suit land.

The Supreme Court was concerned with whether there were grounds for the stay of execution.

If a court was to grant an application for stay of execution, the applicant must establish that the appeal has a likelihood of success, or the prima facie case of his right to appeal; applicant will suffer irreparable damage or the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted; and the application was instituted without delay. 

The applicant’s failure to obtain a certificate from the Court of Appeal did not render the appeal incompetent as the Supreme Court Rules provide that it is not necessary to obtain the certificate prior to lodging a notice of appeal. In assessing whether the appeal raised issues which merit consideration, the court held that the matter raised whether the issue was already adjudicated on. On the second criterion, the applicant established that irreparable damage would be suffered if the stay was not granted as a house would be destroyed. It was also accepted that the application was brought without delay. 

The stay of execution was granted.