Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">REPRESENTATIONS:<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin">1.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">OKPE BEN Esq., holding brief of SIR DIM UDEBUANI MARCEL Esq. for the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-latin">2.<span style="font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></b><!--[endif]--><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">A. S. ANYANWU Esq., for the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">R U L I N G<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">This is the Ruling on the Motion on Notice, brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, and under the Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In this Motion, the Defendants/Applicants are praying the Honourable Court for the following reliefs:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">1. An Order of the Honourable Court granting leave to the Defendants/Applicants to amend their statement of Defence and 1<sup>st</sup> Witness Statement on Oath as per the annexure herein attached and marked exhibit “Aâ€.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">2. An Order of the Honourable Court granting leave to the Defendants/Applicants to file additional Defendants 2nd Witness Statement on Oath as per annexure herein attached and marked exhibit “Bâ€11<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">3. And for such further or other Order as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In support of the application is a 15 paragraph affidavit sworn to by the 1st Defendant/Applicant as the CEO/MD of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">There are also two annexures, <b><i>Exhibit A & B</i></b>, being the proposed amended Statement of Defence and the proposed Defendant’s 2nd Witness statement on oath respectively. Counsel relied on all the paragraphs of the Affidavit, as well as the annexures.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS</span></u></b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In response to the Claimant Origination process filed in this suit and served on the Defendants, the latter, on the 1st of June, 2015 filed a joint Defendants statement of Defence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">However, while on in-chambers pre-trial briefing with the 1st Defendant, as the sole witness of the Defendants, on the 1st November, 2015, preparatory to the hearing that was to commence on the 9/11/15, it was observed that there was a mix up in the Statement of Defence, from paragraph 30 -38, which had a page of the witness Statement on Oath of the Defendant witness, invariably a mistake arising from the photocopying and stapling of the process, which distorted the sequential flow and understanding of the averments, and was inadvertently, undiscovered before the filing of the processes. Unfortunately, the Laptop, with which the process was typed, crashed sometime thereafter, and all effort to retrieve the document from the system, for easy amendment of the process, proved abortive.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Secondly, the 1st Defendant, who at the time of the preparation and filing of the process was psychologically unstable to proof-read and appreciate the facts set out in the Statement of defence, also further observed that some vital facts constitute the Defence of the Defendants were omitted while some were not properly captured.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Hence the need for the proposed amendment of the Statement of defence to align with the facts of what actually transpired between the Claimant and the Defendants. The Defendants are also desirous of filling additional Defendant witness statement on Oath.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION</span></u></b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin">.<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l2 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin">WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS/APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO THE GRANT OF THIS APPLICATION?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></u></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">SUBMISSION ON THE ISSUE</span></u></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Counsel submitted that the whole essence of an application for amendment of pleadings by a litigant in a civil suit, such as that of the Defendants /Applicants before the Honourable court, is to correct errors, slops or mistakes made in a process or pleadings filed in the court so that parties may have their rights, properly determined by the and prevent likely injustice or defeat of justice that may result by reason of such slip, mistake or inadvertency, either of a counsel to the party or the litigant himself.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">On this, he referred the Court to the case of <b><i>ADEKEYE & ORS Vs. AKIN-OLUGBADE (1987) N.S.C.C. Vol. 18 Part 1</i> <i>865 at Page 870 paras 25-45,</i></b> where Oputa J.S.C stated the law as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“An amendment is nothing but correction of an error committed in a process, pleadings or proceedings at law or in equity, and which is done either as of course or by consent of parties or upon notice to the court in which the proceedings is pending. The reason being that court decides rights of parties and not punish them for mistakes they may make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance by their rights. The aim of amendment is usually to prevent the manifest justice of a case from being defeated or delayed by formal slips, which arise from inadvertency or mistake of counsel or the litigant?â€<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">He also further submitted that though the grant of an application for amendment lies within the discretionary powers of the Honourable<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Court, however it has been adjudged a duty which the Honourable Court must exercise whenever its powers is invoked by the application of a litigant in any civil proceedings pending before the Honourable Court, and irrespective of the stage of that proceedings.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Instructive in this regards my lord is the case of <b><i>GOWON Vs .IKE OKONGWU % 2ORS (2003) 6 NWLR (PT 815) Page 38</i>,</b> where my lords of the Supreme court at page 48 para. G thus observed<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“When an action has been started, the court has at all its stages, until it is finally determined ample powers of amendment. And it is the duty of the court to exercise those powersâ€.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Thus, he submitted from the forgoing principles of law that the only duty required of the Defendant in this case to be entitled to the relief being sought is simply to show that the application is intended to correct errors or mistakes or misrepresentation of facts, arising out of slip or inadvertency, for the proper determination of the rights of parties, and that the amendment is not injurious in any way to the other party<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">To counsel, the Applicants have satisfied these requirement by the depositions in paragraph 4, 5,7,11 & 12, of the affidavit in support of this motion, which he urged the Court to deem as read, setting out the reasons and the essence of this application<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Counsel also submitted that the amendment being sought is in no way injurious to the Claimant /Respondent; neither can it occasion any irremediable injury or injustice because, in the first place, the matter had only been mentioned and, secondly, the facts averred in the proposed amendment is not radically different, or entirely new or from that known to the Claimant so as to have the effect of springing a surprise or constitute an embarrassment to the Claimant. All that has been done, no doubt, in the proposed amendment is to properly articulate the defence of the Defendant/Applicants to erase all misrepresentation of facts, errors and slips that could occasion injustice, in line with the right of the Defendants to state their case in the best way it suits them.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">He urged the Court to grant same.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The Claimants, in response, filed a 25-<b> </b>paragraphed affidavit sworn to by Uchenna Udoku Peters of counsel, a legal practitioner in the Law firm Dim-Udebuani & Co, Agam Agamebu Chambers, Counsel to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In compliance with the Rules of this Court, the Claimant also filed a written Address.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In their Address, the Claimants, through their counsel prayed the Court to refuse the amendment on these following grounds both in status and judiciary authority.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">1 The law is settled on the issue of amendment and literally meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Justice Oputa JSC in<b> <i>Adekeye vs. Akin-Olugbade (1987 2 NWLR pt 60) </i></b>214 when he said as follows:-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“Blunders may occur and nowadays they do occur with disturbing regularity but all the same the court should not be stampeded into chasing the shadows of these blunders rather than facing the substances of the justice of the caseâ€<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The courts have therefore through the years taken a stand that however negligence or carelessness may have been the slip therefore a proposed amendment once the character of the case is to be affected it must be refused.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">He submitted that Claimants’ counter-affidavit is very clear and unambiguous and as such, granting the amendment willy-nilly will by no means prejudice the entire case. On these point, he referred the Court to the following cases <b><i>Wiri v. Wuche (1980) 1-2 S.C 12, Afolabi v. Adekunle (1983) 2 SCNLR 141, Akinkuowo v. Fafirnoju (1965) NWLR 349; Oguntimehin v. Gubere (1964) NMLR 55, Dominion Flour Mills Ltd v. George (1960) LLR 53, Adetutu v. Aderohunmu (1984) 1 SCNLR 515, Amadi v. Thomas Aplin and Co. Ltd (1972)1 ALL NLR (pt. 1) 409, Adekeye v. Akin-Olugbade (1987) 3 NWLR (pt 60) 214, Akoh v, Abuh (1988) 3 NWLR (pt 85) 696 Metal Construction (WA) Ltd v. Migilore (1979) 6-9 S.C. 163.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Counsel submitted that the Amendment sought to be made is overriding because it will entail injustice to the Claimant/Respondent, and the affidavit in support of the leave to amend and the proposed amendment itself, mala fide.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">To counsel, the whole essence of the amendment is a dramatic summersault sequel to the judgment and the High Court matter and nothing more.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Therefore, counsel further submitted that there is no competent motion before this Court because the Supreme Court has held that failure of the Counsel signing any legal document without affixing NBA stamp and seal is incompetent. On this, he referred the Court to the judgment delivered in Appeal No. SC/722/15 between <b><i>All Progressive Congress (APC) v. General Bello Sarkin Yaki. </i></b>See also <b><i>Rule 10 (1) of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2007.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Finally, we poignantly refused the amendment because once amendment of a pleading is allowed and the former pleading is no longer material before the court and no longer defines the issue to be tried, the amended pleading is deemed to have related back to the date of the original pleadings which it amends,- <b><i>Nwosu V.I.S.E.S.A.</i> <i>(1990) 2NWLR (pg 135) 688</i></b>. On the strength of that, we urge the court to grant leave to amend only the paragraphs mentioned in the affidavit to the extent of amendment in line with <b>Justice Oputa JSC in Adekeye v. Akin-Olugbade (Supra)</b> any nothing more.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">CONCLUSION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">It is Claimants’ submission that justice is rooted in sincerity of good intention and not vide mala fide. Therefore, counsel urged the Court to refuse the inconsistent and incoherent proposed amendment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">WRITTEN ADDRESS IN SUPPORT OF FURTHER AND BETTER AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO THE 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS COUNTER AFFIDAVIT AND REPLY ON POINT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">OF LAW.<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">INTRODUCTION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In reply to the Counter Affidavit of the Claimant, dated the 13th day of November, 2015, the Defendants have filed a Further and Better Affidavit of 16 paragraphs, sworn to by Augustine Sunny Anyanwu Esq, a legal practitioner in the office of EMMA EJIOFOR & CO.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The Further and Better Affidavit is dated the 27th November, 2015 and filled on the 30th November, 2015. Counsel relied on all the paragraphs of the Affidavits and two annexures marked <b><i>Exhibit A & B</i></b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">1. <b><u>ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION</u></b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">(I<b><i>). WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115(1) & (2) OF THE EVIDANCE ACT, 2011(AS AMENDED) THERE COULD BE SAID TO BE BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT A COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT WITH SUFFICIENT FACTS CHALLENGING THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT UPON WHICH THE COURT MAY REFUSE THE APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT?<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">SUBMISSION ON ISSUE</span></u></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family: "Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Counsel submitted, that the Counter Affidavit of the Claimant/Respondent before this Honourable Court, in opposition to the Defendants/Applicants Motion for amendment is not only defective in substance, but far short of discharging the duty placed on him as a party opposing an application for the exercise of the discretionary powers of the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">To counsel, it is trite law, that the duty of a Party opposing an application for amendment, requiring the exercise of the discretion of the Honourable Court, is to place before the Court, by Affidavit evidence, facts establishing any grounds upon which the Court may refuse the Application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">This position of the law was enunciated in the case of <b><i>WILLIAMS VS, HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FURNITURE (1982)1-2 S.C 145</i></b><i>, and reiterated in the case of <b>CELTEL (NIG) LTD V ECONET WIRELESS LTD (2011)3N WLR (PT..1233) 156</b></i>, where the Honourable Court, while considering a similar application for thus observed:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“An Applicant in an application for amendment must, as in other cases for exercise of Court discretion, establish prima facie, by affidavit evidence, in line with the Supreme Court decision in WILLIAMS VS. HOPE RISING VOLUNTARY FURNITURE, his entitlement to the prayers sought. <u>Having done that, it is incumbent on the party opposing to place before the court affidavit evidence establishing any of the five (5) grounds upon which the Court may refuse the application. This is more so, where “bad faith†or “mala fideâ€, “prejudice†or “over reaching†is alleged. These are deductions that can only be made from a set of facts. A party relying on such an averment must set out facts constituting the allegation. He who alleges must proveâ€.<o:p></o:p></u></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">From the forgoing, it is evident that the duty required of the Claimant/Respondent, with respect to the Applicant’s application before this Honourable court is, therefore, to file a counter affidavit that must be laden with facts establishing any of the grounds upon which the court is enjoined to refuse an application for amendment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In other words, the facts adduced in the Counter Affidavit by the Claimant/Respondent must be such from which the Honourable Court would make a deduction and conclusion that the application of the Applicant is intended either in “bad faith†or “mala fideâ€, or would result in “<i>irredeemable injustice</i>†to the Respondent, or is “<i>overreaching</i>†or intended to “<i>prejudice</i>â€, or “<i>embarrass</i>†or “<i>spring</i> <i>surpriseâ€</i> upon the Claimant/Respondent, any of which are the only grounds upon which an application for amendment may be refused by the court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">He submitted that relevant question for determination, in deciding whether or not the Honourable court would exercise its discretion in favour of the Defendants/Applicants is: whether the Counter Affidavit of the Claimant/Respondent before the Honourable Court had established any of the grounds that would warrant the refusal of this application?<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Counsel’s opinion to the above poser, is an emphatic NO!, and so because, with the exception of paragraphs <b>15, 16 & 21</b> of the Counter affidavit that may be accorded some element of relevance to the application before the Honourable Court, but which was also countered in <b><i>paragraphs 7 to 17</i></b> in their Further and Better Affidavit, and paragraphs <b><i>2, 3, 10, 17,18,20, 23 & 25, </i></b>which are irrelevant facts to the application before the court, all other paragraphs of the Counter Affidavit to wit:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14 & 22</span></i></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">, which form the bedrock of the Claimant/Respondent opposition are legal arguments, conclusion and prayers, which is offensive to the provision of <b><i>Section 115(2)</i></b> of the <b><i>Evidence Act, 2011</i></b>( As Amended).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">More so, though the Claimant/Respondent did alleged in <b><i>paragraph</i></b> <b><i>24</i></b> of the Counter Affidavit, that he would be prejudiced by the grant of the application, if the application is not refused. However he failed to avert any supporting facts from which the Honourable Court would be able to deduce the alleged prejudice in the grant of the application, as stated in the above cited judicial authority.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">From the said judicial authority, it is beyond doubt that the Claimant/Respondent must go beyond mere averment of prejudice to adducing facts from which the Honourable must make its deductions, because the onus of prove is on him to persuade the court that the amendment sought is intended to, or would prejudice him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Counsel also further submitted that the failure of the Claimant/Respondent to have adduced facts in the Counter Affidavit establishing any of the grounds upon which an amendment may be refused, is an incurable defect which cannot be remedied by the submission the counsel, no matter how brilliant, because it is trite that a course address cannot take the place of evidence. He referred the Court to the case <b>of <i>CHIEF OGUNDARU OREMADE A WONUSI & 1 ORD V. MR. ADEYEME ODUNSI AWONUSI 2007 (ALL FWLR) (PART391)1642 Page 1655 paras A-B.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">He also further submitted that the implication of paragraphs <b>3,4,5,6,7,8,9,11,12,13,14 & 22</b>, being offensive to <b><i>Section 115(2)</i></b> of <b><i>the Evidence Act</i></b> is that there is no affidavit evidence of the Claimant/Respondent challenging the application of the Defendant/Applicant before this Honourable Court for consideration by the Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">To counsel, he is fortified in this submission, by the case of <b><i>BUHARI V.INEC (2008) NSCQ VOL. 36 PART 1 PAGE 475 at 646,</i></b> where my lords of the Supreme Court, per Niki Tobi JSC, while confirming the decision of the Court of Appeal rejecting the entire depositions in an affidavit for breach of Sec. <b><i>86 & 87 (now S, 115(1) & (2</i></b>) by some of the depositions, thus stated:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“it is my view that the depositions which complied with Section 86 (now 5.115(1)) of the Evidence Act cannot save the entire depositions as they are drowned by those which violated 5. 87 (now 115(2)) of the Evidence Act. This is because a Court of law is not competent to pick depositions in affidavit which are consistent with S. 86 of the Evidence Act. The Court of Appeal was- therefore right in rejecting the depositionsâ€<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">In the light of the above therefore, and on the strength of the trite legal principle that any averment in an affidavit not denied or controverted is deemed admitted and can be acted upon by the Honourable Court, he humbly urged the Court to hold that the depositions of the Defendants/ Applicant is true and correct, and act upon same to grant their application.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></u></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">COURT<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Having gone through the Motion before me, the submissions of both counsel and the authourities cited by both counsels for determination, the Court distilled 3 issues for determination by this Court:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin">1)<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin">Will it entail injustice to the Respondents?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin">2)<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin">Is the Defendant acting malafide.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:Calibri;mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin">3)<span style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin">By his blunder, has the Applicant done some injuries to the Respondents which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise?<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">On ISSUE 1<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The Court has carefully gone through the reasons for the amendment and saw that they were quite reasonable. (See para 2&3) Both were in the 3<sup>rd</sup> and 4<sup>th</sup> para paragraphs in the written Address of the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The Applicants are the Defendants. Hearing had not commenced, and if the Applicant noted a slip, I think this is the best time to amend it; as any evidence on an issue which was not pleaded; or a case not on record is strictly in-admissible. See <b><i>Imonikhe vs. A-G Bendel State (1992) 6 NWLR (part243)238.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></u></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">I also went through<b><i> </i></b>the C/ A and Address of the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">There was nothing to show that amending the pleadings of the Defendants would entail injustice to them. It is trite learning that the Court will disallow an application for amendment where it will prejudice the other parties’ interest or will result to injustice. See <b><i>Adaka vs. Ikot Abasi TRC (1991) 479.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">ISSUE 2<o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“WHETHER THE APPLICANTS IS ACTING MALAFIDEâ€<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The law is that an applicant for an amendment which is meant to ensure that the litigants’ case is properly and fully placed before the Court is usually granted unless it is brought malafide and the grant of it will do injustice to the adversary.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">This is not so in this case. The briefs have been exchanged by the parties and the matter was slated for commencement of Hearing when the Applicants brought this Application. Even though the Claimants mentioned it, but there is nothing to show that the amendment will overreach the, prejudice their case etc. Since this is some of the issues a respondent must prove to prevent the granting of amendment, the failure to do so is fatal to their case Issue 2 is therefore decided against the Respondents.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Issue 3<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">“Whether by his blunder, has the Applicant done some injuries to the Respondent which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise?â€<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The Courts would ordinarily allow amendment of Court processes and pleadings of all parties in order to ensure that cases are properly tried on the merits, subject however to payment of cost by the party s applying for such amendment to the other party to compensate him for the delay or any injury he may suffer. SEE <b><i>Gov. of Midwest vs. Mid motors (1997)10 SC, 43. ABRAHAM VS OLORUFUNMI (1991)1 NWLR (Pt.165) 53.<o:p></o:p></i></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">The object of the Court is to decide the right of the parties and not to punish the mistakes made in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights. Thus there is no mistake, which is not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the Court ought not to correct if it can be done without injustice to the other side.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> As a result of all the reasoning above, the Court is minded to an hereby grant the Applications of the Defendant/Applications and same s granted as prayed; i.e.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">1. An Order of the Honourable Court granting leave to the Defendants/Applicants to amend their statement of Defence and 1<sup>st</sup> Witness Statement on Oath as per the annexure herein attached and marked exhibit “Aâ€.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">2. An Order of the Honourable Court granting leave to the Defendants/Applicants to file additional Defendants 2nd Witness Statement on Oath as per annexure herein attached and marked exhibit “Bâ€11<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">3. The Claimant/Respondents are granted….day to file and file their consequential amendment to their brief if they deem same necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">4. The Claimants are awarded a cost of N50,000 for the delay or any injury he may suffer.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">Ruling is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">…………………………………………<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><i><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:16.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin">HON. JUSTICE M. N. ESOWE<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p>