Not filing respondents brief in no way puts the appellant at an advantage, since the judgment of the Court of Appeal is a favour of the respondent. The appellant still has to show that the Judgment of the court of Appeal was wrong.
– Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Cameroon v. Otutuizu (2011) – SC.217/2004
SHARE ON
As the respondents filed no brief nor participated at the hearing of the appeal, I make no order as to costs. – Ogundare JSC. Iragunima v. Rivers State (2003)
PARTIES IN SAME APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT WHO ARE UNITED IN INTEREST SHOULD FILE A JOINT BRIEF
In Abubakar v. Providus Bank Ltd. (2026) 13 NWLR (Pt. 2056) 87 at 140—141, D—A per Abubakar JSC: ‘The jurisprudential rationale behind Order 16 rule 7(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2024 is self-evident. Where parties are united by common interest and pursue identical reliefs or legal objectives, multiplicity of briefs serves no legitimate purpose. Rather, it clogs the appellate process with repetitive submissions, burdens the opposing party with needless responses, and dissipates valuable judicial time that ought to be devoted to the determination of genuinely contentious issues. The law does not encourage superfluity. Equity, like nature, abhors multiplicity where unity suffices. The mandatory tenor of the Rule is underscored by the deliberate use of the word ‘shall’. It is elementary that where the word ‘shall’ is employed in a statutory or procedural provision, particularly in relation to a duty imposed upon litigants, it ordinarily imports compulsion and not mere discretion, unless the context otherwise admits. See Access Bank Plc v. Ogboja (2022) 1 NWLR(Pt. 1812) 547. The obligation imposed on parties with identical interests to file a joint brief is therefore mandatory. In the instant appeal, not only are the interests of the respondents visibly aligned, but the arguments also advanced in their separate briefs are virtually indistinguishable in contents, reasoning, and relief sought. No conflict of interest has been demonstrated. No divergence in legal position has been disclosed.No peculiar defense or separate factual matrix has been identified to justify the filing of multiple briefs. The separate briefs merely reproduce, in repetitive sequence, the same preliminary objections and substantive submissions. Such a course of conduct runs contrary to both the letter and spirit of Order 16 rule 7(1) of the Rules of this court.’
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF THAT SUPPORTS APPELLANT BRIEF WOULD BE STRUCK OUT
S.C.E.S. Ltd. v. Umaru Adamu Ent. Ltd. (2026) 10 NWLR (Pt. 2049) 291 AT 324 per Adumein JSC: ‘I observed that the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed separate briefs. A careful perusal of these briefs shows that each of them wants the court to allow the appeal. It has long been settled by this court that the duty or role of a respondent, who has not cross appealed against a decision, is to defend the judgment and not to attack it. Where a respondent abandons his duty or role as a respondent, his brief of arguments will be struck out. The 2nd respondent’s brief and that of the 3rd respondent are hereby struck out for being incompetent.’
Notwithstanding the above, it is pertinent to note that the 3rd Respondent, in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the application for extension of time to file the 3rd Respondents brief of argument, averred that Exhibit C attached to the affidavit was the 3rd Respondents brief. Yet, after the grant of the application, the 3rd Respondent proceeded to a file a different brief of argument thereby taking both the Appellant and the Court for a ride. This conduct must be and is viewed with disapproval. The 3rd Respondents Brief filed on 24th November, 2016 would have been discountenanced by this Court for this reason except for the fact that the Appellant has replied to it. As by filing the said reply to that brief, the Appellant had waived his right to have the process struck out or discountenanced by this Court. Accordingly, the objection of the Appellants counsel is hereby discountenanced.
— O.F. Omoleye JCA. Amaechi V. The Governor of Rivers State & Ors. (CA/PH/342/2015, 8 May 2017)
At the hearing of the Appeal on 16 December, 2019 the Appellant was absent and unrepresented. His brief was taken as adopted.
— O. Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Bakari v. Ogundipe (2020) – SC.514/2015
Any brief of argument filed by a party out of time and without extension of time sought and obtained is incompetent and will not be taken but struck out at the hearing of an appeal. Where the extension of time granted has also expired, the party will still need another extension of time for revalidation or else the brief will be incompetent and liable to be struck out. See the cases of: (1) Mohammed V. Klargester (Nig.) Ltd. (1996) 1 NWLR (Pt. 422) p.54 at p.61 and (2) Goji V. Ewete (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt. 736) p.373.
— O.F. Omoleye JCA. Amaechi V. The Governor of Rivers State & Ors. (CA/PH/342/2015, 8 May 2017)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry