danger. This Court cannot but consider the urgency of the matter and I I · 1 as in other international courts and their practices which this Court referred to above; the application ought to be granted in order not to render the substantive case before us nugatory and void. 47. On the other hand, the 1st defendant stated in his paragraph 6 dated 7th November, 2013 of his counter affidavit, that the 2nd plaintiff has no valid and subsisting appeal at the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division with Appeal No. CA/IC/274/M/2013 and that the letter "M" in the appeal number is indicative that the 2nd plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file an appeal, which · did not amount to a substantive appeal. In paragraph 5 of the additional counter affidavit the 1st defendant stated that he orally confirmed from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Kaduna Judicial Division, Surajo Gusau that what the 2nd plaintiff filed before the Court of Appeal is a motion for extension of time to file . a Notice of Appeal and not a substantive Notice of Appeal. 48. When this Court considers the substance of the facts in the affidavit on one hand and those facts in the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit, it would be apparently clear that the dispute of the parties relates to whether ·there was a valid appeal pending before the Court of Appeal Kaduna Division in respect of the intention and other act on the 2nd plaintiff to cha1lenge this· conviction and sentence to death - by the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal Kaduna. 49. There is no doubt that the 2nd plaintiff indicated clearly his intention to appeal against his conviction and sentence to death whether by way 19