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!

WHERE COUNSEL NOT PRESENT, BRIEF WILL BE TAKEN AS ADOPTED

Reach more audience. Place advert here.

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

Was this dictum helpful?

SHARE ON

brief

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.’

Was this dictum helpful?

LACK OF RESPONDENT BRIEF DOES NOT PUT THE APPELLANT AT AN ADVANTAGE

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

Was this dictum helpful?

BRIEFS SHOULD BE CONCISE AND DEAL WITH THE ISSUES ARISING

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)

Was this dictum helpful?

NOTWITHSTANDING FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO FILE BRIEF, APPELLANT WILL SUCCEED ON HIS OWN BRIEF

This failure will not affect the determination of the appeal. This is because an appellant will succeed on the strength of his case. He can only succeed or fail on his own brief notwithstanding the absence of the Respondent’s Brief. In a catalogue of decided cases, the Appellant courts have held that the failure of a Respondent to file a reply brief is immaterial. See John Holt Ventures Ltd. v. Oputa (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt. 470) 101 C.A., Onyejekwe v. The Nigeria Police Council (1996) 7 NWLR (Pt.463) 704 C.A., Waziri v. Waziri (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 533) 322 C.A. and U.B.A. Plc v. Ajileye (1999) l3 NWLR (Pt. 633) 116 C.A. Confirming the effect of failure of Respondent to file a reply Brief, the Supreme Court in Unity Bank Plc v. Bouari (2008) 7 NWLR (Pt.1086) SC 372 per Ogbuagu J.S.C. held: “It has been held that the failure of a Respondent to file a reply Brief is immaterial. This is because an Appellant will succeed on the strength of his case. But a Respondent will be deemed to have admitted the truth of everything stated in the Appellant’s Brief in so far as such is borne out by the records. In other words, it is not automatic an Appellant must succeed or fail on his own Brief”.

— R.O. Nwodo, JCA. Teleglobe v 21st Century Tech. (2008) – CA/L/694/2006

Was this dictum helpful?

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.’

Was this dictum helpful?

INELEGANCE OF BRIEF WILL NOT DEFEAT MERIT OF A CASE

However, since the introduction of brief writing way back in 1985 in the apex court, it has been the availing principle and practice that inelegance of a brief of argument should not defeat the merits of a case. Thus, as much as possible, the brief should be salvaged unless it is legally impossible to do so. See Ndukwe v The State 37 NSCQR 425 @ 484; (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1139) 39; Amghare v Sylva (2009) I NWLR (Pt.1121) 1@ 53; Lawal v. Salami (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 752) 687: Lawal v. Oke (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt. 711) 88.

— Saulawa, JSC. Enobong v. The State (2022) – SC/CR/249/2020

Was this dictum helpful?

No more related dictum to show.