The court found that the applicant provided a cogent explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, namely that he only became aware of the judgment after auctioneers proclaimed his vehicles and was in the process of changing legal representation. The delay was not inordinate, being approximately two weeks beyond the statutory period. The court also determined that the issue of ownership raised by the applicant was triable and could potentially alter the outcome of the judgment. The applicant acted promptly upon learning of the judgment and took steps to arrest the situation. The court further held that the applicant was likely to suffer substantial loss if stay was not granted, and that the application was brought without unreasonable delay. The applicant's willingness to furnish security for the due performance of the decree further supported the grant of stay. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to allow the applicant to file the appeal out of time and granted a conditional stay of execution.