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

INELEGANCE OF BRIEF WILL NOT DEFEAT MERIT OF A CASE

However, since the introduction of brief writing way back in 1985 in the apex court, it has been the availing principle and practice that inelegance of a brief of argument should not defeat the merits of a case. Thus, as much as possible, the brief should be salvaged unless it is legally impossible to do so. See Ndukwe v The State 37 NSCQR 425 @ 484; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 39; Amghare v Sylva (2009) I NWLR (Pt.1121) 1@ 53; Lawal v. Salami (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 687: Lawal v. Oke (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 88.

— Saulawa, JSC. Enobong v. The State (2022) – SC/CR/249/2020

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?

BRIEFS SHOULD BE CONCISE AND DEAL WITH THE ISSUES ARISING

On another look at the whole of the respondent’s brief, it can be seen that the brief is not elegantly written, besidesthis, it is very verbose and full of a lot of repetitions. The trial court’s judgment is only fourteen pages, it is from this that the respondent’s counsel wrote a brief of 62 pages. This no doubt defeats the essence of brief writing. Briefs should be concise and deal with the issues that arose from the appeal and relate to the word “Brief”. It defeats the whole intendment of brief writing if one will spend the whole day or night reading one brief. This can be excusable in a very complicated matter where there are so many appellants with many notices of appeals and also cross-appeals or where many cases are consolidated but not in this case which is a very simple matter.

— Opene JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)

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?

BRIEF OF ARGUMENT MAY NOT BE DISCOUNTENACED WHERE THE OTHER PARTY HAS REPLIED TO IT

Notwithstanding the above, it is pertinent to note that the 3rd Respondent, in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the application for extension of time to file the 3rd Respondents brief of argument, averred that Exhibit C attached to the affidavit was the 3rd Respondents brief. Yet, after the grant of the application, the 3rd Respondent proceeded to a file a different brief of argument thereby taking both the Appellant and the Court for a ride. This conduct must be and is viewed with disapproval. The 3rd Respondents Brief filed on 24th November, 2016 would have been discountenanced by this Court for this reason except for the fact that the Appellant has replied to it. As by filing the said reply to that brief, the Appellant had waived his right to have the process struck out or discountenanced by this Court. Accordingly, the objection of the Appellants counsel is hereby discountenanced.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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?

No more related dictum to show.