The Respondent husband applied to dismiss an Appeal from a divorce decree brought by the Appellant wife. The Appellant frankly admitted to the Court of Appeal that she wanted finalization of the divorce delayed in order to force the Respondent to come to better terms with respect to financial issues. The Court of Appeal noted that the Appellant had not filed a Factum before the time limits within the Rules even though she had been reminded twice by the Case Management Officer. The Court stated that an Appellant who benefits from a stay of execution pending Appeal is under a duty to prosecute that Appeal promptly. The Court stated that Rule 12.54 forbade a Certificate of Divorce permitting re-marriage unless there is a Certificate of No Pending Appeal. The Court observed that this was an automatic stay of execution created by filing the Appeal which could not be lifted by any Court. The stay was therefore very serious. The Court was clear and firm that the Rules of Court and Court Orders applied to self-represented litigants and not just to parties with counsel. The Appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.