Indeed, in succinctly explaining the new issue which should attract a reply, the Supreme Court had held in EGESIMBA v ONUZURIKI (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt. 791) 466 at 518, thus: “A new issue to attract a reply must in law be really new in the sense of being brand and fresh. The issue must be really new to the statement of claim, in that it was not existing therein and was therefore brought into existence or introduced for the first time in the statement of defence by the defendant. The new issue, both in its content and materiality, must be further and additional to the statement of claim. Thus, the mere fact that a defendant states his own side of the case does not necessarily make it new, particularly when the plaintiff has told a contrary story in his statement of claim. In such a situation, the case stated by the defendant amounts to joining issues with the plaintiff and that does not bear the name of a new issue in law. A new issue arises where the plaintiff did not avert to or touch the content of the defendant’s averments in anticipation, and the defendant’s averment was introduced to the pleadings for the first time and therefore unique and novel to his pleadings.”
— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. Peter Obi & Anor. v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/03/2023