NEW FACTS CANNOT BE INTRODUCED VIA A PETITIONER’S REPLY

It is therefore clear that paragraph 16(1) of the First Schedule to the Electoral Act does not permit a Petitioner in his Reply to introduce or bring in any new issue or fact which ought to have been raised in the petition itself. In other words, a Petitioner cannot in the guise of a Reply to a Respondent’s Reply, introduce a new issue of fact which was never raised in his Petition nor raised by the Respondent. To do that will amount to amending or adding to the petition, and also taking the Respondent by surprise because at that stage, the Respondent will not be in a position to react to such new issue or fact. It will therefore breach the Respondents fundamental right to fair hearing. Therefore, the Petitioner is not permitted to repair or rehash his averments in the Petition in such a way that it will amount to an amendment or reconstruction of the petition. See Dingyadi v. Wamako (2008) 17 NWLR (pt. 116) 395.

— H.S. Tsammani, JCA. APM v INEC & Ors. (2023) – CA/PEPC/04/2023

Was this dictum helpful?

FUNCTION OF A REPLY BRIEF

In Ecobank Plc v. Honeywell Flour Mills Plc (2018) LPELR 45124 (SC), it was held: I need to emphasize that the function of a Reply Brief is to answer the arguments in the Respondents brief which were not taken in the Appellants brief. It is not meant to be a repetition of the arguments in the Appellants brief. It is not an opportunity to re-emphasize the arguments in the Appellants brief.

Was this dictum helpful?

REPLY BRIEF IS NOT FOR CORRECTING ERRORS IN MAIN BRIEF

In Nyesom v. Peterside & Ors. (2015) 11 – 12 SCM, 139, (2016) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1492) 71 this Court held that “The purpose of a reply brief is to reply to new points raised in the respondent’s brief of argument and not fill any error in appellant’s brief.”

Was this dictum helpful?

INCOMPETENT REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

Now, the law is that a reply on points of law is meant to be just what it is, a reply on points of law. It should be limited to answering only new points arising from the opposing brief. It is not meant for the party replying on points of law to reargue its case or bring in points it forgot to advance when it filed its final written address. It is not a form to engage in arguments at large. Alternatively put, a reply on points of law is not meant to improve on the quality of a written address; a reply brief is not a repair kit to correct or put right an error or lacuna in the initial brief of argument. See Dr Augustine N. Mozie & ors v. Chike Mbamalu [2006] 12 SCM (Pt. I) 306. The effect of non compliance is that the Court will discountenance such a reply brief. See Onuaguluchi v. Ndu [2000] 11 NWLR (Pt. 590) 204.

— B.B. Kanyip, J. Olatunji v UBER (2018) – NICN/LA/546/2017

Was this dictum helpful?

NO NEED FOR REPLY BRIEF WHERE NO NEW ISSUE IS RAISED

The respondent did not raise any new issue for appellant to file a reply brief. The reply brief is discountenanced for being repetitive of what has been canvassed in the main brief. — T.Y. Hassan, JCA. EMTS Ltd. (Etisalat) v. Godfrey Nya Eneye (2018) – CA/A/724/2014

Was this dictum helpful?

A REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW IS NOT MEANT FOR RE-ARGUING ONE’S CASE

A reply on points of law is meant to be just what it is, a reply on points of law. It is not meant for the party replying on points of law to reargue its case or bring in points it forgot to advance when it filed its final written address. A reply on points of law is thus not meant to improve on the quality of a written address; it is not a repair kit to correct or put right an error or lacuna in the initial brief of argument. See Dr Augustine N. Mozie & ors v. Chike Mbamalu [2006] 12 SCM (Pt. I) 306; [2006] 27 NSCQR 425, Basinco Motors Limited v. Woermann Line & anor [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149; [2009] 8 SCM 103, Ecobank (Nig) Ltd v. Anchorage Leisures Ltd & ors [2016] LPELR-40220(CA), UBA Plc v. Ubokolo [2009] LPELR-8923(CA) and Musaconi Ltd v. Aspinall [2013] LPELR-20745(SC).

— B.B. Kanyip, J. Awogu v TFG Real Estate (2018) – NICN/LA/262/2013

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

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

Was this dictum helpful?

NEW FACTS CANNOT BE INTRODUCED VIA A PETITIONER’S REPLY

Was this dictum helpful?

FUNCTION OF A REPLY BRIEF

Was this dictum helpful?

REPLY BRIEF IS NOT FOR CORRECTING ERRORS IN MAIN BRIEF

Was this dictum helpful?

INCOMPETENT REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

Was this dictum helpful?

NO NEED FOR REPLY BRIEF WHERE NO NEW ISSUE IS RAISED

Was this dictum helpful?

A REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW IS NOT MEANT FOR RE-ARGUING ONE’S CASE

Was this dictum helpful?