The fact that there are arguable grounds of appeal does not automatically entitle an applicant to the grant of a stay, particularly where the res is money. The applicant must still show that there are strong reasons for granting a stay of execution. The issue of balance of convenience is also such reason. The applicant must come to equity with clean hands. He must make a full and frank disclosure. See S.P.D.C. Nig. Ltd. v. Okei (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1007) 1; Fasel Services Ltd. v. N.P.A. (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 35; F.C.M.B. v. A.I.B. (Nig.) Plc (2000) 8 NWLR (Pt. 667) 42. The granting of stay of execution of judgment is subject to the discretion of the court which must be exercised judicially and judiciously based on the facts of each case. Apart from showing arguable points of law, there is also the question of the nature of the subject matter in dispute, can maintaining the status quo until a final determination of the appeal in the case will meet the justice of the case or not. There is also the question of if the appeal succeeds, can the applicant be able to reap the benefit of judgment on appeal. Where the judgment is in respect of money, whether there is a reasonable probability of recovering the money back from the respondent if the appeal succeeds. I shall quickly add that poverty is not a special ground for granting a stay of execution except where the effect will be to deprive the applicant of reaping benefit of the decision of the court on appeal.
— S. Kado J. Ayangbade v. UBA (NICN/YL/05M/2020, 9th February 2021)