The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory conditions for the grant of stay of execution as set out in Order XLI Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no averment or submission on substantial loss, no undertaking to provide security, and no explanation for the inordinate delay in bringing the application. Furthermore, the applicant's advocate was not properly on record, having failed to obtain the requisite leave. The court also noted that the applicant had already commenced payment of the decretal sum by instalments, undermining the urgency and bona fides of the application. The absence of the lower court record and lack of sufficient information further weakened the applicant's case. Consequently, the application was found to be without merit and/or incompetent and was struck out and dismissed with costs.