Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

DILIGENCE IN PREPARING BRIEFS

Dictum

Before I conclude this judgment I would like to say a word or two about the lack of due care and attention with which the briefs in this appeal were prepared and filed. The appellant’s brief contained not less than fifteen grammatical errors in six pages of the brief. Such numerous grammatical mistakes cannot be written off on the altar of the usual excuse – “typographical error”. It shows utter lack of care in the preparations of the brief. Briefs, like pleadings and every other document prepared for filing in court are serious and I may add solemn documents. They require great industry, great concentration and great care and attention in their preparation, vetting and proof-reading before they are filed in Court. A brief or pleading which is replete with grammatical errors is irksome to the reader and annoying to the Judge.

– Ubaezonu JCA. Coker v. Adetayo (1992)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

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?

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?

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF THAT SUPPORTS APPELLANT BRIEF WOULD BE STRUCK OUT

RESPONDENT’S BRIEF THAT SUPPORTS APPELLANT BRIEF WOULD BE STRUCK OUT

S.C.E.S. Ltd. v. Umaru Adamu Ent. Ltd. (2026) 10 NWLR (Pt. 2049) 291 AT 324 per Adumein JSC: ‘I observed that the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed separate briefs. A careful perusal of these briefs shows that each of them wants the court to allow the appeal. It has long been settled by this court that the duty or role of a respondent, who has not cross appealed against a decision, is to defend the judgment and not to attack it. Where a respondent abandons his duty or role as a respondent, his brief of arguments will be struck out. The 2nd respondent’s brief and that of the 3rd respondent are hereby struck out for being incompetent.’

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?

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?

No more related dictum to show.