LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Inconsistency or Ambiguity in Briefs – Duty of Court
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where there is inconsistency or ambiguity between one part of a brief and another part, a court faced with such inconsistency or ambiguity should not try to resolve such unaided by counsel but should call the attention of the party to the inconsistency or ambiguity and ask that he resolves it. Part of the purpose of oral argument is to enable our appellate courts to resolve inconsistencies or ambiguities in briefs.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Ayoola, JSC, in Araka v. Ejeagwu (2000) NLC-511999(SC) at p. 27; Paras C–D.
"Where there is inconsistency or ambiguity between one part of a brief and another part, a court faced with such inconsistency or ambiguity should not try to resolve such unaided by counsel but should call the attention of the party to the inconsistency or ambiguity and ask that he resolves it. Part of the purpose of oral argument is to enable our appellate courts to resolve inconsistencies or ambiguities in briefs."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
When a brief contains inconsistency or ambiguity, the court should not resolve it without counsel’s assistance. The proper course is to draw the inconsistency to counsel’s attention and request clarification, typically during oral argument. This ensures the court correctly understands the party’s position and avoids misinterpretation. Oral argument serves to clarify ambiguities in written submissions. Resolving inconsistencies without counsel’s input risks error and denies the party opportunity to explain or correct. Fair hearing requires that parties address such issues.