I would however like to make a brief remark on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents’ Brief of Argument. In the said Brief, rather than canvass arguments in support of the judgment, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents’ counsel made submissions in support of the Appellant’s position in the appeal and urged the Court to resolve the appeal in favour of the Appellant. Now, the Apex Court has stated in a plethora of decided authorities that the traditional role of a Respondent to an appeal is to defend the judgment appealed against. If he wants to depart from this role by attacking the said judgment in any way, he is obliged by the Rules to file a cross appeal. See Lafia Local Government vs. The Executive Government Nasarawa State & Ors (2012) LPELR- 20602 (SC); Dangana & Anor vs. Usman & Ors (2012) LPELR- 25012 (SC); Kayili vs. Yilbuk & Ors (2015) LPELR-24323 (SC); Agi vs. PDP & Ors (2016) LPELR-42578 (SC); Cameroon Airlines vs. Otutuizu (2011) LPELR-827 (SC); PDP vs. Oranezi (2017) LPELR-43471 (SC). Where, however, a Respondent to an appeal is satisfied with the judgment appealed against and does not intend to file a cross appeal to attack the judgment, the best thing for him to do is to remain mute and not depart from his traditional role by supporting the Appellant. In the circumstance, the role played by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Respondents in this appeal is ignoble and arguments canvassed by them in their Brief of Argument amounts to freaky advocacy liable to be discountenanced.
– M. I. Sirajo JCA. UBA Plc v. Uche & Ors (CA/A/869/2018, February 25 2022)