Brief of argument

• Pages: 25-35

25

evidence. See: Obasuyi v. Business Ventures Ltd. (2005) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 658) 668

at 690, where the Supreme Court held inter alia that: “As far as the facts of any

given case are concerned, the address of counsel is supposed to deal only with the

evidence before the Court. The mere mention of a matter in the course of such

address is never a substitute for the evidence that has not been led, nor can it

supplement the inadequacy of the evidence already given at the trial….” In Aro v.

Aro (2003) 3 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 649) 443 at 457, this Court held that: “The argument of

counsel to a party, however brilliant cannot form or be valued as evidence in favour

of a party or take the place of evidence which is lacking in his case.” See also

Mains Ventures Ltd. v. Petroplast Ind. Ltd. (2000) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 651) page 151

at 161; Ishola v. Ajiboye (1998) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 532) 71; Chukujekwu v. Olalere

(1992) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 221) 86 and Ugorji v. Onwu (1991) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 178)

177.” Per Omokri, J.C.A., in UBA Plc. v. A.C.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 12 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 939) 232 at 277 - 278.

(2) “Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever to support the submission of counsel

for the 1st respondent, Mr. Neji, that value has been given to the cheque in dispute

and that the amount involved has been paid to the 2nd respondent. Devoid of any

evidence, the submission of counsel is nothing but mere conjecture and speculation.

More importantly, the submission of counsel is not a substitute for evidence. See:

Obasuyi v. Business Ventures Ltd. (2000) 5 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 658) 668 at 690, where

the Supreme Court held inter alia that: “As far as the facts of any given case are

concerned, the address of counsel is supposed to deal only with the evidence before

the Court. The mere mention of a matter in the course of such address is never a

substitute for the evidence that has not been led, nor can it supplement the inadequacy

of the evidence already given at the trial…….” In Aro v. Aro (2000) 3 N.W.L.R.

(Pt. 649) 443 at 457, this Court held that: “The argument of counsel to a party,

however brilliant cannot form or be valued as evidence in favour of a party or take

the place of evidence which is lacking in his case.” See also Mains Ventures Ltd. v.

Petroplast Ind. Ltd. (2000) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 651) page 151 at 161; Ishola v. Ajiboye

(1998) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 532) 71; Chukujekwu v. Olalere (1992) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt.

221) 86 and Ugorji v. Onwu (1991) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 178) 177.” Per Thomas,

J.C.A., in U.B.A. Plc. v. A.C.B. (Nig.) Ltd. (2005) 12 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 939) 232 at

277 - 278. (3) “It is trite that learned counsel cannot proffer evidence for the parties

through their briefs or written addresses.” Mohammed v. Abdulaziz (2009) All

F.W.L.R. (Pt. 465) 1684 at 1702.

(5) BRIEF OF ARGUMENT

45. Attitude of an appellate Court to a defective brief of argument.

“In my view, this submission completely lost sight of both the purpose of a brief and

the duty of this Court in an appeal before it. Briefs have been designed to help this

Court and the Court of appeal to expedite the disposal of appeals. Although the

Brief of Argument Paras. 44-45