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)
SHARE ON
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
It is trite that the award of costs is always at the discretion of the court but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and judicially. It is also a well settled principle that costs follow event and a successful party is entitled to costs except where there are special reasons for depriving him of such entitlement and these ought to be shown by the judge. See OBAYAGBONA VS OBAZEE (1972) 5 SC 247. AMIRA NIG) LTD VS MAL (NIG) LTD. (2001) 17 NWLR (PT 742) 269 and DONATUS IDAM VS ALEX IDEMYOR MENE (2009) 17 NWLR (PT 1169) 74 … It is worthy of note that costs are not imposed as a punishment on the party who pays them, neither are they awarded as a bonus to the benefiting party. The party entitled should only be indemnified for his out of pocket expenses and be compensated for the true and fair expenses for the litigation. See BUHARI VS OBASANJO (2005) All FWLR (PT 258) 1604; KUKOYI VS ODUFALE (1965) 1 All NLR 300 and OLASOPE VS NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1985) 3 NWLR (PT 11) 147.
— S.C. Oseji, JCA. ACB v Ajugwo (2011) – CA/E/66/2006
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.’
Before I conclude this judgment I would like to say a word or two about the lack of due care and attention with which the briefs in this appeal were prepared and filed. The appellant’s brief contained not less than fifteen grammatical errors in six pages of the brief. Such numerous grammatical mistakes cannot be written off on the altar of the usual excuse – “typographical error”. It shows utter lack of care in the preparations of the brief. Briefs, like pleadings and every other document prepared for filing in court are serious and I may add solemn documents. They require great industry, great concentration and great care and attention in their preparation, vetting and proof-reading before they are filed in Court. A brief or pleading which is replete with grammatical errors is irksome to the reader and annoying to the Judge.
– Ubaezonu JCA. Coker v. Adetayo (1992)
Before I round off, learned senior counsel for the Appellant has urged this court to set aside the costs of #5 million awarded against J.O. Olotu, Esq, counsel who settled the Appellant’s brief at the lower court. Without belabouring the point, let me state clearly that the Appellant has not placed before this court, any tenable reason or argument why the lower court’s order as to costs should be set aside or interfered with. Hence, the Appellant’s prayer in that regard is refused.
— A. Jauro, JSC. PDP v INEC (2023) – SC/CV/501/2023
On another look at the whole of the respondent’s brief, it can be seen that the brief is not elegantly written, besidesthis, it is very verbose and full of a lot of repetitions. The trial court’s judgment is only fourteen pages, it is from this that the respondent’s counsel wrote a brief of 62 pages. This no doubt defeats the essence of brief writing. Briefs should be concise and deal with the issues that arose from the appeal and relate to the word “Brief”. It defeats the whole intendment of brief writing if one will spend the whole day or night reading one brief. This can be excusable in a very complicated matter where there are so many appellants with many notices of appeals and also cross-appeals or where many cases are consolidated but not in this case which is a very simple matter.
— Opene JCA. United Bank for Africa (UBA) v. Samuel Igelle Ujor (CA/C/134/99, 20 FEB 2001)
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry