Saheed Afeez Ayinde<\/strong><\/p> DEEMLAWFUL<\/strong><\/p> The court in this matter had painstakingly clarify the mix up roles attached to “Reply Brief” that is usually made by the Appellant in response to The Respondent.<\/p> In this case, counsel to the Appellant had raise a new point in his “Reply Brief” in order to Corroborate and amend the Lacuna in his initial Brief served to the Respondent.<\/p> Hence, the court had called the attention of the parties and remove the offshoots as observed in the cited case below;<\/p> LT. COLONEL P. Y. AWUSA V. NIGERIAN ARMY LOR 4:5:2018 SC<\/strong><\/em>
as per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.<\/strong> (Delivering the Leading Judgement)<\/em>
This is totally unacceptable because as I said: \u201ca reply brief is not a repair kit to put right any lacuna or error in Appellants Brief” Mozie V. Mbamalu (supra). <\/em><\/strong>
A reply brief is not the forum for the Appellant to strengthen his main Brief by repeating or expanding the arguments contained therein; not to mention the introduction of fresh arguments that should have been made in the main brief. In effect, a reply brief does not open the door for the Appellant to take a second bite at the cherry<\/strong>; he will not be permitted to do so. <\/p>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/deemlawful.files.wordpress.com\/2020\/06\/wp-15921450839686046922411279355179.jpg?w=720\")
<\/figure>