By the provision of paragraph 16(1) (a) above reproduced, a petitioner is permitted to file a reply if the Respondent to the petition in his reply raises new issues of fact in defence of his case which the petition has not dealt with, but in doing so, the Petitioners’ reply shall not bring in new facts, grounds or prayer which tend to amend or add to the contents of the petition. See MADUABUM V NWOSU (SUPRA).
— K.M. Akano, J. Edeoga v Mbah (2023) – EPT/EN/GOV/01/2023
SHARE ON
In fact, the settled position of the law is that except in some well-defined situations, a Reply to Statement of defence is not even permitted where no counterclaim is served. This is so because there is in law an implied joinder of issues on any fact raised in the statement of defence and any averment...
The facts constituting the defence of laches and acquiescence can be gleaned from paragraphs 13, 14, 19, 24, 29, 31, 32, 42 and 48 of the Statement of defence of the defendant/appellant. The contention of the appellant is that the weighty averments made in these paragraphs were not in any way controverted by the plaintiff/respondent....
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...
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry