"Finally, the 1st respondent in asking this Court to discountenance the appellant's brief seeks to invoke the discretionary powers of the Court. He has the duty of providing the necessary material on which basis the discretion is to be exercised in his favour. See University of Lagos V. Aigoro (1985) 1 NSCC 88 and Babatunde V. Pan Atlantic Shipping and Transport Agency Ltd & ors (2007) 4 SCNJ 140. In the case at hand the presumption of regularity enures to the appellant. His brief is to be presumed as having been regularly filed and therefore competent until the presumption is, by concrete facts, rebutted. By Section 168 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 recognition and validity must be accorded the appellant's brief of argument that has been duly processed. See Aliu Bello V. AG Oyo State (1986) 12 SC 1 and Citec V. International Estate & ors V. Francis & ors (2014) LPELR-22314 (SC). The 1st respondent's failure to establish when the record of appeal was served on the appellant constitutes and amounts to inability to rebut the presumption that appellant's brief has been regularly filed. The objector cannot seriously insist that the time of filing the brief has lapsed and the brief as filed is incompetent. In the particular circumstance of the instant appeal, be it re-emphasized, the fundamental issue of jurisdiction the appeal raises entitles the appellant to argue his appeal even viva voce.

Per MUHAMMAD, J.S.C. In CHIEF EUGENE ENEH v. NIGERIA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION & ORS (2018) LPELR-44902(SC)