APPELLATE PRACTICE — Reply Brief — Permissible Scope
Ratio Decidendi
Per Rhodes-Vivour, JSC, in Cameroon Airlines v. Otutuizu (2011) NLC-123-217-2004(SC) at p. 23; Paras A—C:
"A Reply Brief is necessary and usually filed when an issue of Law or argument raised in the Respondents Brief calls for a Reply. Where a Reply Brief is necessary, it should be limited to answering new points arising from the Respondent's Brief. Although, an Appellant's Reply Brief is not mandatory, where a Respondent's Brief raises issues or points of law not covered in the Appellant's Brief, an Appellant ought to file a Reply Brief. It is not proper to use a Reply Brief to extend the scope of the Appellant's Brief or raise issues not dealt with in the Respondent's Brief."
Explanation / Scope
This principle establishes that a reply brief is necessary when the respondent’s brief raises new points of law or argument, and should be limited to answering those new points. It cannot be used to extend the appellant’s brief or raise new issues. The principle applies in appellate practice. It ensures that reply briefs are used properly. The principle reflects the purpose of reply briefs. It prevents abuse of the reply process. The court must confine the reply brief to new points. The principle provides guidance on reply briefs.