"Order 19 Rule 2, of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 stipulated time frame to file the brief, being 45 days immediately after the record has been entered or regularized.

It does not stop the filing of additional records, amendments etc all these interlocutory applications are housekeeping applications to be done between the filing of the record and the actual hearing of the appeal. This moves the appeal faster, tidies the appeal and brings it forward and when the respondents files their brief they do not run the risk of having the appeal struck out or undefended, see Order 19 Rule 10(1) & (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016;

"1)     Where an appellant fails to file his brief within time provided for in Rule 2 of this order, or within the time as extended by the court, the Respondent may apply to the court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution,

  2)      where an appellant fails to file brief within the time provided for in rule 2 of this order, or within the time as extended by the court, the court may suo moto dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.’’

The long and short of the above is that it reduces the length of time for hearing appeals if briefs are filed timeously, see Re: Ita (2018) LPELR – 44875 (CA).

In Dangote & Anor v Yinusa (2018) LPELR - 44944 (CA), the court held thus;

"Order 19 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 provides: "The appellant shall within forty - five days of the receipt of the Record of Appeal from the Court below file in the Court a written brief, being a succinct statement of his argument in the appeal". Order 19 Rule 10(2) reads: "Where an Appellant fails to file his brief within the time provided for in Rule 2 of this order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Court may suo motu dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution."

The record of appeal in the instant appeal clearly shows that it was transmitted on the 7th of July, 2017 and the appellants' brief of argument was filed on the 10th of October, 2017. By Order 19 Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016, the appellants had forty five days to file their brief. From the 7th of July, 2017 when the record was transmitted to the 10th of October, 2017 when the appellants' brief was filed, forty five days had elapsed and the appellants did not deem it appropriate to bring an application for extension of time to file the brief. Rules of Court are meant to regulate and provide guidelines for the conduct of proceedings before the Court. They are meant to assist the Court in its primary function of dispensing justice to the parties - KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Vs Aloma (2018) 1 NWLR (part 1601) 473 at 480. It follows therefore, that Rules of Court are not made for fun but meant to be obeyed. By Order 19 Rule 10(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2016 where an Appellant fails to file his brief within time provided for in Rules 2 of this Order, or within the time as extended by the Court, the Respondent may apply to the Court for the appeal to be dismissed for want of prosecution......

See Reg. Trustees T.T.O.U. Vs Nigerian Union of Mines Workers (2014) 2 NWLR (part 1391) 287 at 290; Asalu Vs Dakan (2015) 13 NWLR (part 1475) 47 at 50; Asalu Vs Dakan (2006) 5 SC (part 3) 120; Kraus Thomson Organization Vs N.I.P.S.S. (2004) 17 NWLR (part 901) 44 and Evemili Vs State (2014) 17 NWLR (part 1437) 421 at 424....."per HASSAN, J.C.A (PP. 7-12, PARAS. A-C)."

 

PER A.O.OBASEKI- ADEJUMO, J.C.A IN JACOB LADIPO .V. SIL CHEMICAL LIMITED & 3 ORS APPEAL NO: CA/L/808/2017