A REPLY BRIEF CAN ONLY CONTAIN REPLIES TO NEW ISSUES RAISED BY RESPONDENT

REPLY BRIEF IS FOR ADDRESSING NEW ISSUES RAISED

A reply brief is filed when an issue of law or argument raised in the respondent’s brief usually by way of a preliminary objection calls for a reply. Where a reply brief is necessary, it should be limited to answering any new points arising from the respondent’s brief. Although the filing of a reply brief by an appellant is not mandatory, where a respondent’s brief raises issues or points of law not covered in the appellant’s brief, an appellant ought to file a reply as failure to file one without an oral reply to the points raised in the respondent’s brief may amount to a concession of the points of law or issues raised in the respondent’s brief. It is not proper to use a reply brief to extend the scope of the appellant’s brief or raise issues not dealt with in the respondent’s brief. A reply brief is not meant to have a second bite of the cherry, which is exactly the purpose of the appellant’s reply brief in this appeal. Since the appellant used the reply brief to extend the scope of his argument and submission in the two issues raised for determination, it is utterly irrelevant to this appeal.

– Adekeye JSC. Harka v. Keazor (2011) – SC.262/2005

ESSENCE OF A REPLY BRIEF

The essence of a reply brief is not to reopen argument already canvassed. It is to reply to new issues that have arisen in the respondents brief of argument. — P.A. Galumje, JSC.

FAILURE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF MAY BE DEEMED ACCEPTANCE OF NEW POINTS RAISED

Although it is not mandatory for an appellant to file a reply brief. However, where a respondents brief raises a point of law not covered in his (appellants) brief, he (appellant) ought to file a reply (brief). Indeed, where he fails to do so (that is, fails to file a reply brief) without an oral reply to the points raised in the respondent’s brief, he may be deemed to have conceded to the points of law or issues so raised in the respondent’s brief.

— C.C. Nweze JSC. Onuwa Kalu v. The State (SC.474/2011, 13 Apr 2017)

PURPOSE OF FILING A REPLY BRIEF IS TO RESPOND TO NEW POINTS RAISED BY RESPONDENTS BRIEF

At the hearing of this appeal on 19 October 2015, the learned senior counsel to the 1st and 2nd respondents urged us to discountenance it as it was in contrast with what a reply brief is supposed to contain and he therefore A urged us to discountenance it. In his response, the learned senior counsel for the appellant felt otherwise and had explained that his reply brief is competent and should not be discountenanced. I have closely studied the appellant’s reply brief. I share the view of the learned silk for the 1st and 2nd respondents that large portion of the appellant’s reply brief contains repetition of submissions and arguments earlier advanced by the appellant in his main brief. The learned silk for the appellant merely succeeded in amplifying or fine-tuning them. It therefore does not qualify as what a reply brief should contain. It is trite law that the purpose of filing a reply brief to a respondent’s brief by an appellant is simply to reply to new points which were raised or canvassed in the respondent’s brief of argument. It is therefore not meant to be used to put right or fill any lacunae or error in the appellant’s brief or to fine-tune, repeat or amplify arguments proffered by the respondent in the respondent’s brief of argument. The instant appellant’s reply brief is therefore unnecessary, since it is largely a repetition of the arguments or submissions earlier made or provided in the appellant’s main brief of argument. I therefore for that reason, hereby discountenance the repetitive portions of the appellant’s reply brief and shall refuse to consider them. See Popoola v. Adeyemo (1992) 8 NWLR (Pt. 257) 1; Shuaibu v. Maihodu (1993) 3 NWLR (Pt. 284) 784; Chukwuogor v. Attorney-General of Cross Rivers State (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 534) 375; Ojiogu v. Ojiogu and Anor. (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 538) 840, (2010) 1 SC 13.

— Sanusi, JSC. Wike Nyesom v. Peterside, APC, INEC, PDP (SC. 718/2015, 27 Oct 2015)