Okechukwu Adimora V. Nnanyelugu Ajufo & Ors (1988)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

A. OPUTA, J.S.C.

The facts of this case lie within a comparatively narrow compass. The only difficulty seems to be that both the Appellant’s Brief as well as the Respondents’ Brief left much to be desired. The proper format of a good Brief should contain the:

(i) Introduction and concise Summary of the Facts.

(ii) Decision of the Court of Appeal.

(iii) Issues for Determination.

(iv) Legal Argument.

(v) Summary and Conclusions.

(vi) List of Authorities.

I have had occasion in Engineering Enterprise of Niger Contractors v. A. G. of Kaduna State (1987) 2 N.W.L.R. 381 at pp.413/414 to comment on Brief writing and on the format and contents of a good Brief. One can only hope that these observations would be heeded in future.

The Plaintiff negotiated through the intermediary of the 2nd Defendant to purchase eleven plots of land from the Defendants’ family land situate at Iyiukwu. Pursuant to an agreement to buy and sell, the Plaintiff paid the sum of N5,400 as purchase price of those eleven plots. The receipts for the payments were issued by the 2nd Defendant and were tendered as EXS. A, B, B1-B7. The only issues of fact on which the two Courts below based their findings and on which the Plaintiff’s case was dismissed were:-

(i) Whether or not the 2nd Defendant was acting for and on behalf of the Defendant’s family and

(ii) Whether the money the 2nd Defendant got from the Plaintiff (N5,400.00) was paid over to the Defendant’s family

Without any reference to the pleadings and the evidence led the two Courts below decided both issues against the Plaintiff. Having thus lost in the two Courts below, the Plaintiff has now appealed to this Court against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below.

On the 22nd day of March 1988, when this appeal was heard, Mr. Ezeuko, learned counsel for the Appellant, was present but Chief Obianyo, learned counsel for the Respondent was absent although Miss C. N. Obianyo appeared for Chief F.M. Obianyo on the 14/12/87 when both principal counsel (Ezeuko – Obianyo) asked for adjournment. The appeal was then adjourned in open Court to 21/3/88 for hearing. On the 21/3/88 Mr. Ezeuko appeared but Obianyo did not. The appeal was further adjourned to 22/3/88. On the 22/3/88 Mr. Ezeuko referred us to Order 6 Rule 8(6) of the Supreme Court Rules 1985 and asked the Court to take the appeal as argued on the Briefs since both sides had each filed its Brief of Argument. Under our Rules parties may rely on their Briefs. Oral arguments are merely in elaboration of points taken up on the Brief. Mr. Ezeuko who was present was allowed to comment on two points argued in his Brief – namely on the pleadings of the parties and on the issue of limitation of time.