The court found that the appellant satisfied the requirements for stay of execution pending appeal. The application was filed within a reasonable time, as the delay was explained by the transfer of the court file. The appellant demonstrated a reasonable fear of substantial loss if execution proceeded, given the substantial decretal sum and the respondent's failure to provide evidence of means to refund the amount if the appeal succeeded. The court exercised its discretion to require security for due performance, rejecting the appellant's offer of property as security due to concerns raised by the respondent, and instead ordered that security be provided by way of a bank guarantee or deposit of the decretal sum in a joint account. The stay was granted on these conditions, with each party to bear their own costs.