Judiciary-Poetry-Logo
JPoetry

CLIENT’S CASE MAY DEPEND ON THE QUALITY OF THE BRIEF

Dictum

Counsel will do well to remember that the fate of his client’s case may well depend on the persuasive quality of his brief. The Brief is defined in Order 6, Rule 5 of the 1985 Rules as “a succinct statement of his argument in the appeal.” A mere statement of the argument is contrary to the intendment of the rule and therefore not enough.

– Nnaemeka-Agu, JSC. Adejumo v. Ayantegbe (1989)

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

APPELLANT MUST SUCCEED ON STRENGTH OF HIS OWN CASE

But that notwithstanding, it must be borne in mind that an Appellant does not need the support of the Respondent to win his own appeal. He must succeed or fail, on the strength of his own brief and his own case. – Jonah Adah, JCA. Eshiet v. Effiong (2018)

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTIES IN NOTICE OF APPEAL SHOULD BE SAME IN AN APPLICATION SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT ON SAME SUIT

The Notice of Appeal which is the foundation of this application has four parties as respondents, whereas the application has only three parties, exclusive of the Chief Registrar of the Federal High Court who is the 4th respondent in the Notice of Appeal. The Chief Registrar shouldn’t have been excluded/omitted from the application before us, as, if the appeal is supposed to involve the Chief Registrar, then the Chief Registrar is supposed to be involved in the application. The parties in both processes should be the same, and none should be excluded unless it has been formerly withdrawn. In this respect I endorse the submission of Chief Olanipekun. SAN on the issue of the parties, and I agree that the applicant cannot change the parties in the notice of appeal in this application.

— A.M. Muktar, JSC. Shinning Star Nig. Ltd. v. AKS Steel Nigeria Ltd. (2011) – SC. 101/2010

Was this dictum helpful?

WHEN PARTIES ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, ISSUE IS JOINED

From the above it is clear that the parties are not agreed on what happened in ward 9, Sabagreia. They have therefore, joined issues on their pleadings. So, what is the legal evidence adduced on both sides in proof of the facts as each party asserted them?

— Nsofor, JCA. Ugo v Indiamaowei (1999) – CA/PH/EP/97/99

Was this dictum helpful?

PARTY NOT PUNISHED FOR COUNSEL MISTAKE

It is a very well established principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of parties and not to punish them for the mistake they or their counsel may make in the conduct of their cases or appeals by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights.

– Oputa JSC. Obiora v. Osele (1989) – SC.70/1987

Was this dictum helpful?

DIRECTING PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF APPELLANT INFRINGES LIBERTY

The order of the Court directing the personal attendance of the appellants is an interference with their liberty as provided under Section 35 of the Constitution 1999 (as amended) when there is no law or rules of Court expressly authorizing the infringement.

– Chima Centus Nweze, J.S.C. Independent National Electoral Commission & Anor v. Ejike Oguebego & Ors (2017)

Was this dictum helpful?

DISTINCTION PROPER, DESIRABLE, NECESSARY PARTIES

The locus classicus on the often vexed issue of distinction between ‘proper parties’ ‘desirable parties’ and ‘necessary parties’ is the evergreen case of Green v. Green (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 61) 480 at 493 or (1987) 18 NSCC (Pt. 2) 1115. Wherein the supreme court per Oputa JSC (now of blessed memory) held that:- “This now leads one to the consideration of the difference between ‘proper parties’, ‘desirable parties’ and ‘necessary parties.’ Proper parties are those who ought not interested in the plaintiff claim, are made parties for some good reasons e.g where an action is brought to rescind a contract, any person is a proper party to it who was active or concurring in the matters which gave the plaintiff the right to rescind. Desirable parties are those who have an interest or who may be affected by the result. Necessary parties are those who are not only interested in the subject matter of the proceedings but also who in their absence, the proceedings could not be fairly dealt with. In other words, the question to be settled in the action between the existing parties settled unless they are parties to the action instituted by the plaintiff.”

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.