STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

BRIEF OF ARGUMENT TO BE FILED AFTER EXPIRATION OF TIME

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Any brief of argument filed by a party out of time and without extension of time sought and obtained is incompetent and will not be taken but struck out at the hearing of an appeal. Where the extension of time granted has also expired, the party will still need another extension of time for revalidation or else the brief will be incompetent and liable to be struck out. See the cases of: (1) Mohammed V. Klargester (Nig.) Ltd. (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 422) p.54 at p.61 and (2) Goji V. Ewete (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 736) p.373.

— O.F. Omoleye JCA. Amaechi V. The Governor of Rivers State & Ors. (CA/PH/342/2015, 8 May 2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

brief, extension of time

NOTWITHSTANDING FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO FILE BRIEF, APPELLANT WILL SUCCEED ON HIS OWN BRIEF

This failure will not affect the determination of the appeal. This is because an appellant will succeed on the strength of his case. He can only succeed or fail on his own brief notwithstanding the absence of the Respondent’s Brief. In a catalogue of decided cases, the Appellant courts have held that the failure of a Respondent to file a reply brief is immaterial. See John Holt Ventures Ltd. v. Oputa (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 470) 101 C.A., Onyejekwe v. The Nigeria Police Council (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.463) 704 C.A., Waziri v. Waziri (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 533) 322 C.A. and U.B.A. Plc v. Ajileye (1999) l3 NWLR (Pt. 633) 116 C.A. Confirming the effect of failure of Respondent to file a reply Brief, the Supreme Court in Unity Bank Plc v. Bouari (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1086) SC 372 per Ogbuagu J.S.C. held: “It has been held that the failure of a Respondent to file a reply Brief is immaterial. This is because an Appellant will succeed on the strength of his case. But a Respondent will be deemed to have admitted the truth of everything stated in the Appellant’s Brief in so far as such is borne out by the records. In other words, it is not automatic an Appellant must succeed or fail on his own Brief”.

— R.O. Nwodo, JCA. Teleglobe v 21st Century Tech. (2008) – CA/L/694/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

LACK OF RESPONDENT BRIEF DOES NOT PUT THE APPELLANT AT AN ADVANTAGE

Not filing respondents brief in no way puts the appellant at an advantage, since the judgment of the Court of Appeal is a favour of the respondent. The appellant still has to show that the Judgment of the court of Appeal was wrong.

– Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Cameroon v. Otutuizu (2011) – SC.217/2004

Was this dictum helpful?

NO EXTENSION OF TIME IN ELECTION MATTERS

In a purely civil matter, the filing of a process a day after the period prescribed for the filing can be regularized on the application of the defaulting party. But in election matters, even a slight infraction of the rules, particularly those relating to time, can be fatal to the process filed. See Benson v. Allison (1955-56) WRNLR 58, Emerue v. Nkerenwen (1966) 1 All NLR 63, Ige v. Olunloyo (1984) 1 SCNLR 158. An election petition is a proceeding sui generis. See Buhari v. Yusuf (2003) 6 SC (Pt. 11) 156. In the circumstances, appellants could not have filed a motion for extension of time and if one had been filed it could not have been entertained by the tribunal. See Paragraph 18(5) of the 1st Schedule to the Act (supra).

— N.S. Ngwuta JSC. Yaki (Rtd) & Anor. V. Senator Bagudu & Ors. (SC.722/2015, 13 Nov 2015)

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE COUNSEL NOT PRESENT, BRIEF WILL BE TAKEN AS ADOPTED

At the hearing of the Appeal on 16 December, 2019 the Appellant was absent and unrepresented. His brief was taken as adopted.

— O. Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Bakari v. Ogundipe (2020) – SC.514/2015

Was this dictum helpful?

WHERE NO LEAVE FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IS SOUGHT, SUPREME COURT MAY STRIKE OUT CASE WITHOUT CALLING FOR ADDRESS

The above being the position of the statutory provision as interpreted, enunciated and expounded by this Court, it is now beyond arguments that a Notice of Appeal filed or given out of time is incurably and fatally incompetent such that the need to call for address from the parties on the incompetence does not arise. Because the issue goes to deprive the Court of the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate over purported appeal brought by such a notice, it can properly and competently be raised and decided at the judgment stage by the Court without the need to revert back to the parties for a hearing, being the final appellate Court in the Country, since no amount of arguments, and matter how otherwise ingeneous, could breeze life into an already dead appeal; ab initio. See Omokuwajo v. FRN (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1359) 300 at 332 (SC), NNPC V. Roven Shipping Ltd. (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1676) 67 at 92 (SC), Ogar v. Igbe (2019) LPELR-48998 (SC), Oni v. Fayemi (2019) LPELR 49299 (SC), Eneyo v. Ngere (2022) LPELR-56880 (SC).

— M.L. Garba JSC. Kingsley Okoro V. The State (SC.85/2013, 17 Feb 2023)

Was this dictum helpful?

INELEGANT BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED

I must point out at the onset that the appellant’s brief is sketchy, clumsy and inelegant. It cannot be said to be strictly in compliance with the provisions of Order 6 of the Rules of this court, 1984, as amended. But be that as it may, it is a brief that should be considered in the interest of justice. See Akpan v. State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 248) 439; Obiora v. Osele (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 97) 279 at 300.

— Rowland, JCA. Alex O. Odudu v. Emmanuel O. Onyibe (CA/B/138/98, 15 Mar 2001)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.