Download PDF
RULING. 1. The 1st defendant vide motion on notice dated and filed on 21/6/19, brought pursuant to Order 17 Rule 1, Order 26 Rule 1(q) & (b) of the national Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court is praying for:- 1. An order granting leave to the 1st defendant/applicant to amend its statement of defence dated 19th November 2015 as per the annexure herewith and marked as ‘’Exhibit A’’. 2. An order deeming the 1st defendant/applicant’s statement of defence and witness statement on oath as duly filed and served the requisite fees having been paid. 3. And for such further order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. 2. The application was supported by a 13 paragraphs affidavit. Wherein it was stated that the need to amend the statement of defence and witness statement on oath is to enable the court fully and effectually appreciate the issues in controversy in this suit and adjudicate thereon accordingly. It was also stated that the amendment sought is material and not intended to delay the just determination of the case by clarification of central issues in controversy between the parties. 3. The application was accompanied by a written address. Counsel for the 1st defendant/applicant in oral adumbration relied on the depositions contained in the affidavit in support and adopted the written address as his argument. 4. In the written address counsel formulated single issue for determination, to wit: a. ‘’Whether the plaintiff/applicant is entitled to amend his writ of summons and other processes.’’ 5. Counsel began his argument by making reference to the provision of Order 26 Rule 1 (a) & (b) of the rules of this court and submitted that the rules of court has permitted amendment where the purpose is to determine the real question or issue between parties so as to secure substantial justice and settle the controversy between the parties and related issues. 6. According to counsel the guiding principle in the exercise of this power is that an amendment should be mainly for the purpose of properly determining the real question or questions in controversy between the parties. In support of his contention counsel placed reliance on the cases of IKPO V AZUBUIKE (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt.68) 166 @ 184 paras. G-H., IMONIKE V A-G BENDEL STATE (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.248 396-414 paras. E-F. 7. Counsel contended that in the case at hand amendment will not occasion any injustice to the Respondent. It is for just and effectual determination of the case. Counsel urged the court to grant the application. 8. In reaction to this application the claimants/respondents filed a 9 paragraphs affidavit in opposition. In the counter-affidavit most of the averments in the affidavit in support of this application were stated to be false. It was also stated that the 1st defendant filed its statement of defence on the 25/7/15, without frontloading any witness statement on oath, list of witnesses and list of document as required by rules of this court. It was stated that amendment of witness statement on oath cannot be granted as same was not before the court. The amendment is to overreach and aim to do injustice. Granting of amendment will cause undue delay as the amendment is irrelevant, useless and brought in bad faith. There is no cogent and compelling reason to warrant granting of this application. 9. A written address was also filed along with the counter affidavit. Counsel for the claimant while making oral submissions before the court relied on the averment in the counter-affidavit and adopted the written address as his argument. In the written address a sole issue was distilled for resolution, to wit: ‘’Whether a grant of the applicant’s motion on notice will amount to injustice and undue delay in the proceedings of this court.’’ 10. It is the contention of counsel that granting of this application will amount to injustice and undue delay in the proceedings of this court. It is argued that it is an established principle of law that no kind of error or mistake, which if it can be done without injustice to the other party, the court cannot correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party, on this contention counsel relied on the case of AMADI V THOMNAS ALPHIN & CO. (1972) 4 SC 228. It is also the contention of counsel that this application is intended to overreach the claimant. It is further argued that the said amendment is irrelevant and uncalled for and useless as the respondent views same as a tactic to delay the proceedings of this court. Counsel further argued that the amendment was in bad faith, especially when the applicant who fail to frontload his statement of defence with the other originating processes as required by the rules of this court now see it as an opportunity to put their house in order. 11. The amendment being sought is not on real issue in controversy, the amendment is immaterial. The amendment is to introduce new facts which did not exist at the time of pleadings were filed in the case. N. S. E. V KATCHY (2017) PT.1564 284. More so, the applicant who upon being served with originating process failed to file witness statement on oath, list of documents, and witnesses to be called at the trial violate the provisions of rule 2 (1) (a) (b) (c) and (e) Order 32 Rule 1 of the rules of this court. 12. It is trite where defendant failed to file defence within 14 days prescribed by the rules pleading may be deemed closed. The defendant cannot at the close of respondent case, apply to this court for an amendment, for the sole purpose of curing defective statement of defence. Order 30 rule (19) (1) and Order 35 Rule (6) (1 and (7). 13. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to refuse the application and enter default judgment with cost of N100,000.00) COURT’S DECISION. 14. I have carefully and painstakingly perused the motion on notice praying for amendment of statement of defence of the 1st defendant as well as the response by the claimant/respondent. 15. The defendant/applicant is vide this application is praying for leave to amend statement of defence dated 19/11/2015 as shown in exhibit A. There is also a deeming order for exhibit A to be properly filed and served. 16. The claimant/respondent vehemently opposed the grant of the 1st defendant’s application on the ground that it is aimed at bringing in witness statement of on oath which was not attached to the statement of defence as required by the rules of this court. 17. There is no doubt that rules of court have made provisions for allowing amendment of pleading where necessary. The adjectival law is in support of court exercise of discretion to grant amendment of pleading as well as frowns at refusal to grant of amendment. It must be noted the grant or refusal is at the discretion of the court based on evidence adduced before the court for and against the exercise of the discretionary power. Therefore, even where the pendulum weighs or tilts in favour of granting amendments, Courts of law are entitled to refuse amendments in deserving cases. Trial Courts must examine the application for amendment very carefully in the light of the affidavit evidence. In the exercise, the Courts will consider the peculiar facts of each case. 18. In exercising its discretionary power the court should always bear in mind that the objects and aims is decide rights of the parties before it and not to punish them for the error or mistake which may be committed in the conduct of the case. The Court ought not to correct any error or mistake, if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy. Amendment or correction of errors or mistakes can be allowed if it will lead in determination of the real question or issues in controversy between the parties before the court or where injustice will not be occasioned. See the cases of Okeowo v. Migliore (1979) 11 S.C 138; Ojah v. Ogboni (1976) FSC 69, Adeleke v. Awoliyi (1962) 1 All NLR 260, Ademola, CJF (as he then was) said at page 262: "It is part of the duty of a judge to see that everything is done to facilitate the hearing of an action pending before him wherever it is possible to cure an unintentional blunder in the circumstances of a case and it will help to expedite the hearing of an action, the Court is to award costs against any delinquent party rather than dismiss or strike out a case for a fault in the proceedings prior to hearing of the case." 19. It is clear from the case cited above that in an application for amendment of pleadings, the Court will take into consideration a number of principles or factors, including: (a) the attitude of the parties in relation to the amendment; (b) the nature of the amendment sought in relation to the suit; (c) the question in controversy; (d) the time when the amendment is sought. 20. See Alsthom S. A. v. Chief Dr. Saraki (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 687) 415. 21. One major consideration is attitude of the applicant. The attitude of the applicant is the major consideration. In this regard, the Court must be satisfied that the application is brought bona fide or in good faith and not designed to abuse the Court process. In dealing with the nature of the amendment, the Court will take into consideration the totality of the content of the amendment sought vis-a-vis the relief or reliefs sought in the matter. In the consideration of the nature of the amendment sought, the Court will examine very closely the real question in controversy in the litigation. The time or stage of the case when the application for amendment is brought is also an important consideration. And here, the Court should take into consideration whether the applicant brought the application at the earliest opportunity in the proceedings. This will be considered in certain cases, along with the nature of the amendment sought. If the application for amendment was delayed, the Court should be interested to know what caused the delay. If the reason for the amendment was as a result of an important material relevant in the application coming to the applicant's notice late, that will be a consideration in his favour. This means the Court will not be prepared to grant an application if the applicant was indolent in the process of searching for the relevant evidence for the amendment. After all, equity will part ways with an indolent litigant. 22. Amendment could be sought in respect of evidence already led in Court whether through examination in-chief or through cross-examination. Normally, evidence not pleaded will go to no issue: There are however instances when as a result of inadvertence or carelessness of counsel for the opposing party, evidence not pleaded goes into the Record of the trial Judge. In such a situation, counsel, the originator of the evidence through his witness, conscious of the fact that the evidence, not duly pleaded, could be expunged from the Record at the judgment stage, formally applies for the amendment of the pleadings. The trial Judge must take into consideration whether the evidence is relevant in the light of the claim and the reliefs sought. 23. And the final consideration is the justice of the case Justice, which generally means fairness, the quality of being just and the disposition of disputes in Court to render every party his due, is the barometer on which the case revolves or rotates in the judicial process. It is the cynosure in the judicial process and a Judge in the performance of his adjudicatory functions must look out for it, and do it or make sure that it is done in the case. The situation is not open ended. 24. It is to be noted that though the rules of court is in favour of granting amendment, that does not mean that an amendment should be grant as a matter of course or routine. The party applying must satisfied the court that of the merit of the application for amendment. The position of the law that a party should not be inhibited to present his case in Court, however, there is the corresponding right that a party owes the administration of justice and the judicial process a duty to present his case in whole or in one block and not instalmentally. And so, when a party applies to amend his pleadings, the trial Judge must be satisfied of the bona fide of the application. 25. In Adeleke , Ademola, CJF (as he then was) placed restrictions or limitations when he said "wherever it is possible to cure an unintentional blunder". Putting it negatively, an application for amendment will not be granted wherever it is impossible to cure an unintentional blunder. The second situation is that if a blunder is intentional, an application for amendment will not be granted. While an unintentional blunder could be a mistake, an intentional blunder is not. An intentional blunder could, at times, be fraudulent. 26. I shall now consider the amendment sought in line with the well-established principles of law enunciated in the cases cited. 27. I have in the earlier part of this ruling reproduced the prayers being sought by the applicants in the motion papers. 28. The first pray is for amendment of statement of defence marked as exhibit A. from the affidavit evidence the paragraphs of the statement of defence of 19/12/15 sought to be amended are paragraphs 7 and 13, respectively. The said paragraphs are hereby reproduced. 7. The defendant also avers that in response to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the claimant’s statement of facts, subsequent upon the declaration of Redundancy in 2012 the Respondent invited all the labour unions to a meeting and a favourable severance package was negotiated with all the unions in agreement with the terms and conditions. The certified true copy of the agreement and attendance sheets is hereby pleaded and same would be relied upon at the proceedings. 13. The 1st Defendant further avers that it cannot prevents the claimants to receive their pensions as stipulated by the pension reform Act, as disengagement is not a dismissal. 29. The amendment read as follows:- 7. The 1st defendant denies paragraphs 5 and 6 of the claimant’s statement of facts, and in response thereto avers that, subsequent upon the declaration of Redundancy in 2012 the Respondent invited the following Labour Unions for a meeting to negotiate the Severance package of the Applicants; a. Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN). b. Nigeria Civil Service Union (NCSU). c. Amalgamated Union of Public Corporation, Technical and Recreational Employee (AUPCTFRE). d. Nigerian Union of Civil Service Secretariat And Stenographic Workers (NUCSSASW). In attendance of the meeting were also representative of Federal Ministry of Labour of productivity and the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation. In the meeting a favourable Severance package was negotiated and unanimously agreed on terms and conditions. The outcome of the meeting was reduced into an agreement and was executed by the representatives of all the organizations mentioned above. The certified true copy of the agreement is hereby pleaded and same would be relied upon at the proceedings. 13. The 1st defendant denies averments contained in paragraph 15 of the claimants statement of facts and avers that the 1st defendant did not take any illegal action that exposed the claimants to hardship that resulted in damages and it cannot prevent the claimants from receiving their pension as stipulated by the Pension Reforms Act, as the action of the 1st Respondent is a mere disengagement and not a dismissal. 30. A careful perusal of paragraphs 7 and 13 of the statement of defence of the 1st defendant sought to be amended vis-à-vis the proposed amendment will revealed that in the statement of defence of 19/11/15, there was no specific denial. But in the proposed amendment the 1st defendant in specifically denying certain paragraphs of the statement of facts. Having regards to the nature of the proposed amendment of paragraphs 7 and 13 of the statement of defence I am of the view that if grant it will not occasion injustice on the claimants or overreach them. 31. In the circumstance I shall grant the amendment of paragraph 7 and 13 of the statement of defence. 32. However, the next question to settle is what is the fate of the witness statement of on oath that was attached to the proposed amendment. The law is well settled that a court is only allowed to grant prayers prayed for not prayers not before the court. In the prayers on the motion papers under consideration the only prayer that made mention of witness statement of on oath, wherein it is prayed that the said witness statement on oath be deemed properly filed and served along with the proposed amended statement on oath. 33. It is to be noted that this suit was filed in 2015, when the Rules of Court applicable was the 2007 Rues of Court. By Order 9 of the National Industrial Court Rules as amended by National Industrial Court Practice Direction 2012, a party served with a complaint or any other originating process intends to defend the action or counter-claim in the action, the party is required not later than fourteen (14) days after, to file: (a) a statement of defence and counter-claim, (if any),; (b) a list of witnesses ; (c) copies of documents to be relied upon at the trial ; (d) a written Statements on oath of all witnesses to be called by the Defendant. 34. I have had a hard look at the originating process commencing this suit, it was accompanied by witness statement on oath. The provisions of Order 9 of the NIC Rules 2007 as amended by Practice direction 2012 are similar. 35. By order 9 of 2007 rules and Order 15 of the current rules of this Court, a defendant served with originating process has fourteen (14) days within which to file statement of defence accompanied by witness statement of Oath. The 1st defendant in this suit having filed his defence on 19/11/15 without statement on oath does not have any statement on oath before the court which can be amended vide this application and deemed properly filed and served. To grant such request of the 1st defendant will amount to overreaching the claimants which this court does not have power to grant or allowed. 36. It appears to me that what the 1st defendant attempted to do in this suit is under the pretext of amendment brought in a document that was never before the court when the 1st defendant filed statement of defence, this is a clear case of bringing through the back door what the 1st defendant failed or neglected to do at the appropriate time when the defence of the 1st defendant was filed. 37. What the 1st defendant should have done is to move the court to grant extension of time to file witness statement on oath having been out of time to do so and not to use the instrumentality of amendment to surreptiously bring an incompetent process to have it deemed properly filed and served. This to my mind was a deliberate plan to overreach the claimants. 38. From the foregoing, the 1st defendant’s application succeeds in part. Leave is hereby granted the 1st defendant to amend paragraphs 7 and 13 of the statement of defence of 19/11/15 the said proposed amendment having been already filed is hereby deemed properly filed and served. 39. The prayer to deem witness statement on oath properly filed and served is hereby refused as the said process was never filed at the time the statement of defence of 19/11/15 was filed. The said process cannot be brought in without a substantive prayer to that effect. 40. Ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: J. O. Obiano-Osla, Esq; For the Claimants appearing with M. M. Agume, Esq;