STOP SEEING INTRUSIVE ADS, & HAVE PREMIUM FEATURES? Stop seeing intrusive ads and have a smoother reading experience, once you sign up on Judicial Poetry. Sign up now!

FUNCTION OF A REPLY BRIEF

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

The function of a reply brief is to refute the new arguments in the respondents brief. A reply brief is necessary when an issue of law or argument is raised in the Respondents brief which requires a reply by the appellant. Failure to file a Reply brief can adversely affect the case of the appellant if the issues raised in the respondent’s brief are weighty, substantial and relevant in law. A reply brief is not meant to re-argue or fine tune an appellant’s case. A reply brief has no connection or affiliation with the Cross-Respondents brief and can only be filed by an appellant in the main appeal or cross-appeal.

— O.O. Adekeye, JSC. Mini Lodge v. Ngei (2009) – SC.231/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

reply brief

IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR A PLAINTIFF TO FILE A REPLY

In the cited case ofAli v. Salihu (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt.1228) 227 at 253, this Court, per Shadipe JCA stated thus – “The law is no doubt settled that a reply is not filed to a statement of defence as of course. Further pleadings by way of reply is to be filed for the purpose of bringing parties to an issue. It is not necessary for a plaintiff to file a reply if the only purpose to be so achieved is to deny any of the allegations the defendant may have made in the statement of defence. This is because if no reply is filed all the material allegations/facts in the statement of defence are in issue. A reply to merely join issues is therefore not permissible. See paragraph 18.06 of the Practice and Procedure of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Courts of Nigeria by T. A. Aguda. The purpose of filing of a reply to a statement of defence has been succinctly stated by Kawu, JSC; in the case of Akinremi (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.108) 164 at page 172, paras, F-G as follows:- “Now, the rule of practice is that where no counter-claim is filed, a reply is generally unnecessary if its sole object is to raise, in answer to the defence, any matters which must be specifically pleaded, which make the defence not maintainable or which otherwise might take the defence by surprise or which raise issues of facts not arising out of the defence – Bullen and Leake and Jacob’s Precedents of Pleadings, 12th Edition, p.107 (Also see Williamson v. London and North Western Railway Company (1879) 12 Ch. D 787, 794). Reply is the proper place for meeting the defence by confession and avoidance. Hall v. Eve (1876) 4 Ch.D 341.”

Was this dictum helpful?

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

It is not my understanding of the law of brief writing that a reply brief seeks a different relief outside the main brief. A reply brief, as the name implies, is a reply to the respondent’s brief. A reply brief is filed when an issue of law or arguments raised in the respondent’s brief call for a reply. A reply brief should deal with only new points arising from the respondent’s brief. In the absence of a new point, a reply brief is otiose and the Court is entitled to discountenance it. A reply brief is not a repair kit to put right, any lacuna or error in the appellant’s brief.

— Niki Tobi, JSC. Mozie & Ors. v. Mbamalu & Ors. (2006) – S.C.345/2001

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?

REPLY BRIEF IS FOR ANSWERING NEW POINTS RAISED

In Longe v. First Bank of Nig. PLC. 2010 2-3 SC p.61, It was held inter alia that: “… A Reply Brief is necessary and usually filed when an issue of Law or argument raised in the Respondents Brief calls for a Reply. Where a Reply Brief is necessary, it should be limited to answering new points arising from the Respondent’s Brief. Although, an Appellant’s Reply Brief 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 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.”

Was this dictum helpful?

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

Was this dictum helpful?

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.