Download PDF
Representation: O. S. Akinola for the Claimant/Applicant K. I. Uduma for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants U. C. Ikpe (Mrs.) for the 4th Defendant RULING This ruling is premised on a Motion on Notice dated the 13th day of July 2015 and filed on the 14th July 2015, and brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, wherein Counsel for the Claimant prayed the Court for the following orders: 1. An Order of Court granting the Claimant leave to amend his complaint and statement of facts in this suit by adding reliefs b(i), b(iii), f, g, and h, thereto as shown and/or underlined in the proposed Amended Complaint and proposed Amended Statement of Facts, Exhibits A and B hereto. 2. (a) An Order of Court granting the Claimant leave to amend his Statement of Facts in this suit by adding paragraphs 54 to 55(r)(N) thereto as shown and/or underlined in the Proposed Amended Statement of Facts Exhibit B hereto. (b) An Order of Court granting the Claimant leave to generally amend the Complaint and Statement of Facts in the way and manner shown and/ or underlined in the proposed Amended Complaint and Proposed Amended Statement of Facts. 3. An Order of Court granting the Claimant leave to file Additional List of Documents to be relied on as shown in the Claimant's Additional List of Documents Exhibit C hereto. 4. An Order of Court granting the Claimant leave to re-swear and file his Statement on Oath in line with the Amended Statement of Facts in this suit as shown in the Claimant's Re-Sworn Statement on Oath filed and served along with this application. 5. An Order of court deeming the Amended Complaint, Amended Statement of Facts, Claimant's Additional List of Documents and Claimant's Re-sworn Statement on Oath filed and served along with this application as having been properly filed and served; necessary fees having been paid. 6. An Order of Court directing and/or compelling the Defendants to furnish the claimant with certified true copies of the documents listed in the schedule attached hereto (copies of which are front loaded in the list of documents) at the Claimant's expense to enable the Claimant effectively prosecute his claim in this suit. The grounds upon which these orders are sought are as follows: i. The claimant recently changed his counsel in this suit. ii. The new counsel upon studying the processes filed by the Claimant, advised that the processes be amended in terms of the Amendment sought in this application. iii. The Claimant needs certified true copies of the documents listed in the schedule hereto, to effectively prosecute his claim in this suit. Also attached to this application is a schedule listing 37 documents. The application is supported by a 5-paragraph Affidavit deposed to by the Claimant. In the affidavit filed alongside, Counsel for the Claimant raised a sole issue, which is; whether the application should be granted? He submitted that the application should be granted. In Counsel’s words, the Claimant had brought this action to challenge his unlawful suspension from duty, the Claimant prayed the Court to restrain the Defendants from taking any step that could jeopardize his appointment or employment in the 1st Defendant institution. The Defendants during the pendency of this action have purportedly removed the Claimant from service by dismissal. The foregoing situation has necessitated this application to enable the Court determine the real issues in controversy between the parties in the suit. Counsel submitted further that the courts have been enjoined to be liberal in allowing amendments particularly when they are not fraudulent or prejudicial to the other parties. He referred to the case of OGIDI vs. EGBA (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 621) 42 at 64,65 where the Court held that the object of courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights. There is no kind of error or mistake which if not fraudulent or intended to over reach the court ought not to correct without injustice to the other party. Furthermore, Counsel is of the view that one major issue necessitating this application is the fact that the Claimant has referred to some documents in the custody of the Defendants which are Public Documents in respect of which only the certified true copies are admissible in evidence. Thus, the Claimant brought this application to compel or order the Defendants to furnish the Claimant with the certified true copies of the said documents as listed in the schedule to this application, at the Claimant's expense. The Claimant needs the certified documents to enable him effectively prosecute his claim in this suit. More so, by Section 1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act No. 4 2011, the Defendants are obliged and/or enjoined to furnish the Claimant with the said documents. He submitted further that the Defendants will not be prejudiced by this application. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to resolve the issue for determination in favour of the claimant and grant the application. In opposition, the 4th Defendant/Respondent on the 13th day of October 2015, filed a counter affidavit of 10 paragraphs deposed to by Onyeulo Obiageri Uchenna, an Assistant Registrar 1 (Legal) in the employment of the 1st Defendant. In the accompanying written address, Counsel for the 4th Respondent adopted the sole issue formulated by the Claimant/Applicant, and contended that this application cannot be granted on two grounds, which are as follows: 1. That this suit cannot accommodate the Complaint sought to be joined to it for trial because right of action over the new Complaint arose when this suit had already been filed. 2. That if this application is granted, the Applicant’s existing Complaint or cause of action, i.e. his suspension of 3rd July 2013 would be prejudged and overreached as well as the 4th Respondents defence on the said existing Complaint. On the first ground of objection, the 4th Respondent conceded that the Applicant has the right under Order 3 Rule 3 Court Rules to amend his originating Complaint and join an additional Complaint and its intended relief to the Originating Complaint and Reliefs of the pending suit. However, Counsel contended that the extant application should not be granted because it seeks to join a Complaint whose res postdate the birth of the existing suit. He contended that the Applicants right of joinder is to this extent qualified by the provisions of Order 3 Rules 2 and 4 of Court Rules. Counsel argued that in the proposed Amended Complaint, four additional reliefs were proposed as fresh claims in this suit, i.e. reliefs "b(i)" "b(iii)", "f", "g" respectively. He argued that the proposed relief "b(i)" is already before the Court and encompassed in existing relief "b (ii)". Thus, it becomes unnecessary as any decision on existing relief "b(ii)" would have decided and been awarded in proposed relief "b(i)" and vice versa. Also, proposed relief "b(iii)" alludes to earlier suspension of the Applicant from which he was recalled and his salaries paid. To this extent, proposed relief "b(iii)" is tied to proposed reliefs "f" "g" and "h". That all of proposed reliefs "b(iii)", "f" "g" and "h" in line are tied to Applicants aforesaid dismissal. Proposed reliefs "h" and "g" dealing with payment of arrears of salary and emoluments are covered by existing relief "d" which also asked for payment of the same items. From the foregoing, counsel contended that the alleged wrongful act which is the basis for seeking the proposed reliefs had not taken place when this suit was filed. By this fact, the proposed reliefs as remedies to the said alleged wrongful act cannot also be sought for or awarded in this suit. See the case of UNIVERSITY OF JOS v. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 478. Again, Counsel submitted that the Claimant/Applicant cannot validly exercise the right of action over his said dismissal on 6th September 2013 in a suit filed before September 2015.This submission is owing to the fact that the cause of action must first exist before the suit in which the wrong is to be tried or remedied is filed. It follows that for the Applicants aforesaid two causes of action to be tried together, the suit in which they will be so tried in view of the latter cause of action, must not have been filed before 6th September 2013. See Order 3 Rule 2 of the Court Rules. According to Counsel, this Rule requires that every Complaint with which a suit is commenced "shall state specifically the relief or reliefs claimed ...” This suit was filed on 20th August 2013 over res of 3rd July 2013. The Complaint sought to be tried together in the suit by the Application arose on 6th September 2013. In other words, this new Complaint was not in existence at the time this suit was filed. The said new Complaint therefore could not have stated "specifically the relief or reliefs claimed". Thus, the proposed reliefs "b(i)", "b(iii)", "f", "g", and "h" of this application can never by amendment be validly claimed or joined for trial in this suit. To hold otherwise would be a clear violation of Order 3 Rule 2 of the Court Rules. On the second ground of objection, counsel submitted that the Amendment sought in this Application is both prejudicial to the Defence of the Respondents in this matter and at the same time, will overreach the originating Complaints or the subject-matter of this suit together with the ruling of this Court of 2nd February 2015. On the above reasons, Counsel urged the Court to disallow this Application. On the 13th day of November 2015, the Claimant/Applicant filed a further affidavit of 9 paragraphs deposed by the Claimant, along with a Reply to the Defendant/Respondent’s written address. In response to the 4th Defendant Counsel’s submission that the res in the amendment is also the subject matter of the ruling of this Honourable court of 2/2/2015, Counsel submitted that the ruling of this court did not decide on the merit or otherwise of the claimant's allegation on his dismissal from service. The Court confined his ruling to the issue of contempt. Counsel submitted further that this contention of the 4th Defendant’s Counsel is an attempt to deliberately misquote and misrepresent the proceedings of Court. Again, Order 3 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 expressly provides that: "A Claimant may alter, modify or extend the claim without any amendment of the endorsement on the complaint: provided that the claimant may not completely change the cause of action endorsed on the complaint without amending it." Thus, the Claimant is entitled to alter, modify, extend the claim or even change the cause of action in the suit by way of amendment to enable the Court determine once and for all time all the issues arising for determination in the suit. This is in consonance with the provisions of Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 which provides that: "The Court shall in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by or under this Act in every cause or matter, have power to grant, either absolutely or on such terms and conditions as the Court thinks just, all such remedies whatsoever as any of the parties thereto may appear to be entitled to in respect of any legal or equitable claim properly brought forward by the court so that, as far as possible all matters in dispute between the parties may be completely and finally determined and all multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning any of those matters avoided". It is the contention of Counsel that the Defendant’s submission that the issue of dismissal be separately dealt in another suit is a negation of the true import and intendment of Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act which enjoins the Court to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings. Counsel referred to the case of AIREO CONSTRUCTION AND CIVIL ENGINEERING COMPANY LIMITED vs. THE UNIVERSITY OF BENIN (1985) I NWLR (PT 2) 287 at 293 PARA D where the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff may properly join several causes of action in one suit irrespective of whether the cause of action arose from the same facts or different facts. See also N.D.H.P.S.U. vs. IMO CONCORDE HOTELS LTD (1994) 1 NWLR (Pt. 320)306. In further response to the Defendant's contention that the issue of dismissal is not triable in this suit, Counsel submitted that the Claimant can incorporate a new cause of action on same or similar facts into the pending action. See Order 3 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court Rules. Also, once it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much a matter of right on his part to have it corrected, if it can be done without injustice to the other side. See OGIDI vs. EGBA (supra). Counsel submitted that the Defendant has not and/or will not suffer injustice or prejudice by the amendment sought as the Defendant also has the right and opportunity to respond to the Claimant's amendment by joining issues thereon if the Defendant so wishes. In ITA vs. DADZIE (2000) 4 NWLR (Pt. 652) 168 at 182 it was held that an amendment cannot be said to be fraudulent, intended to overreach or cause the other side an irreparable loss merely because if the amendment is allowed, the other party's case will collapse because this will not be enough reason to refuse an amendment. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the Defendant's submissions in opposition to the application and grant the amendment. Court’s Decision After examining the prayers sought by the Claimant in this application, I have observed that the prayers are in two aspects. Prayers 1 to 5 are concerned with amendment of the Claimant’s processes while prayer 6 is seeking an order directing and/or compelling the Defendants to furnish the Claimant with certified true copies of the documents listed in the schedule to the motion. In view of the nature of prayers sought in the application, I will determine this application along the lines of the two indentified groups of the prayers sought. The Claimant is seeking leave of this court to amend his complaint and statement of facts, leave to re-swear and file his Statement on Oath in line with the Amended Statement of Facts and leave to file Additional List of Documents. The proposed amended processes and the list of document were annexed to the application and marked exhibits A, B and C. The facts in support of the application are contained in the affidavit of the Claimant. He averred that he recently changed his counsel in this matter to Akinola Esq. of D.C. Denwigwe SAN and Associates and his new counsel has informed him that there is need to amend the complaint and the Statement of Facts in this suit in terms of the Proposed Amended Complaint and the Proposed Amended Statement of Facts, Exhibits A and B, file Additional List of Documents and Re-swear his Statement on Oath. Only the 4th Respondent filed a counter affidavit to oppose the application. The reasons given in the counter affidavit for so opposing the application are that the dismissal of the Claimant is different from his suspension for which he brought the existing complaint, therefore, the two causes of action cannot be tried together in this suit; having filed a defence to the Claimants suit, allowing this amendment will be overreaching and prejudicial to the 4th Defendant; and that since the dismissal of the Claimant had not taken place when this suit was filed, allowing the Claimant to include a cause of action which post dates the writ will invalidate the Writ. In this application, the Claimant intends to amend the complaint and statement of facts. This amendment will necessitate re-swearing the Claimant’s witness statement and filing of additional list of documents. The amendment to the complaint, as can be seen on the proposed amended complaint annexed as Exhibit A to the motion, include the addition of new reliefs which are numbered b (i), b (iii), f, g, and h. Reliefs b (i) and b (iii) are in respect of the Claimant’s suspension while reliefs f, g and h have to do with the dismissal of the Claimant from employment. I have also looked at the proposed amended statement of facts and I have observed that the new facts introduced therein, particularly as contained in paragraphs 54 to 55N, are facts in respect of the dismissal of the Claimant from employment. The claimant’s cause of action in the existing or original Complaint in this suit, which is now sought to be amended, is the suspension of the Claimant from employment in July 2013. With the amendment now sought, the Claimant intends to incorporate into his action, some claims with respect to the alleged dismissal from employment. Let me mention that this suit was filed on the 20th day of August 2013. From the facts sought to be introduced by the amendment, the Claimant’s dismissal took place in September 2013 while this suit challenging his suspension was pending. The simple issue arising from this application is whether the Claimant can incorporate a new cause of action into his existing claim? I will also keep my view on the issue simple. I think the Rules of this court has made provision for this type of situation. Order 3 Rule 3 National Industrial Court Rules 2007 provides: "A Claimant may alter, modify or extend the claim without any amendment of the endorsement on the complaint: provided that the claimant may not completely change the cause of action endorsed on the complaint without amending it." The above provision of the Rules permits a Claimant to alter, modify, extend the claim or even change the cause of action in the suit by amending the Complaint. By this provision of the rules, it cannot be doubted that an amendment of the Complaint to incorporate a new cause of action or to change the cause of action is permitted. The 4th Defendant’s counsel did concede, in his written address, that the Claimant has the right under Order 3 Rule 3 of the rules of this court to amend his originating Complaint or join an additional Complaint and its intended relief to the Originating Complaint and reliefs to the pending suit. But the gravamen of the 4th Defendant’s opposition to the application is the Claimant’s intent to incorporate a cause of action which arose after this suit has been pending and according to the learned counsel to the 4th Defendant, such amendment is improper and should not be allowed. The position of the law on an application of this nature has been rendered in a number of judicial authorities. The one that is very apt to the issue at hand is the case of IREPODUN-IFELODUN L.G vs. BALEMO (2008) All FWLR (Pt.420) 708 where the Court of Appeal, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Foko vs. Foko (1968) NMLR 441 and Olusolanke vs. G. Somefun & Another (1974) 1 SC 141, explained the circumstance an amendment to incorporate a new cause of action to a pending suit may be allowed. Per Agube JCA (as then was) held at pages 732 to 733 of the report as follows- “Where an amendment incorporates a cause of action which might have been anticipated at the time of the original writ of summons was issued or that the cause of action sought to be incorporated by way of amendment arose out of the same set of facts or transaction, it would be desirable to incorporate it to the original suit so as to be tried and issue in controversy determined at once. I derive authority from the following cases: Foko vs. Foko (1968) NMLR 441 and Olusolanke vs. G. Somefun & Another (1974) 1 SC 141 where the questions were raised as to whether there can be an amendment by substitution and it was variously held that a trial court would be within its power to grant an amendment even if to do so would be to add to the existing cause of action or substitute therefore a new cause, provided that the additional or the new cause arises out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the cause of action in respect of which the plaintiff had already claimed relief. The above position was emphasized by the Supreme Court in Oguma Associated Co. Ltd vs. IBWA Ltd 1988 1 NWLR Pt. 73 PAGE 658 where there was a loan agreement between the plaintiff bank and the defendant company. In 1978, the bank sued the company for recovery of loan granted to it under the said agreement. Subsequently, in 1981, the writ was amended to include claims for recovery of further loans granted under the same agreement which became due by that year. In upholding the propriety of the amendment, the supreme court held the view that the plaintiff’s claim in 1981 was based on the loan agreement and that accordingly, the amendment did not seek to introduce a new loan agreement or constitute the addition of a new cause of action nor did it raise a different case and that it amounted to no more than a different or additional approach to the same facts based on the same cause of action. The amendment was further held to have represented fresh claims arising out of the original cause or action and that to disallow it would defeat one of the main purposes of amendment, namely, that as for as possible in any proceedings, all questions should be decided so as to prevent multiplicity of actions by the same parties.” By the rules of this court and the authority cited above, it is clear that an amendment can be made to the Complaint by introducing a new cause of action or substituting a new one for the original provided the facts in the additional new cause are substantially the same with that of which the claimant has already claimed a relief. This is exactly the scenario in this case. Going by the content of the proposed amendment to the Compliant and the statement of facts, the case of the Claimant is that he was suspended in July 2013 and he initiated this suit to challenge his suspension from employment but while the suit was still pending, the defendants dismissed him from employment. From the peculiar circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the facts in the original suit and the claim or reliefs sought to be incorporated by amendment are on the same subject of the claimant’s employment and they are interrelated. It would be unjust if the Claimant is deprived the opportunity to incorporate the reliefs sought in the amendment. Sending the Claimant away to file a new suit on his dismissal would occasion waste of judicious time and money and would amount to multiplicity of actions, which in my view, is what Order 3 Rule 3 of the rules of this court is intended to avoid. It is settled principle that courts have the inherent powers to allow amendments of processes of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. The exercise of the discretion of the court is most often aimed at doing justice in each particular case. Thus, an amendment of pleading is allowed for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and it can be made at any stage of the proceeding unless such amendment will entail injustice or surprise to the other party or the applicant is acting mala fide or by his blonder the applicant has done some injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated by cost. See AKANINWO vs. NSIRIM (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 410) 610 at 658; NIGERIAN DYNAMIC LTD vs. DUMBAI (2002) FWLR (Pt. 105) 823 at 831; IGWE vs. KALU (2002) FWLR (Pt 97) 677 at 712. This suit has not proceeded to hearing stage and the Defendants have the opportunity to react to the new amendments. I do not see any injustice or injury that will be done to them if this amendment is allowed. One major guide to the court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to amend processes is the need to do substantial justice to all parties and the need to resolve the issues between the parties once and for all. It is to the benefit of justice that the reliefs sought to be incorporated and the facts sought to be pleaded should be allowed in this case. I hereby allow the application of the Claimant to amend his process. Accordingly, the court hereby orders as follows- i. Leave is granted to the Claimant to amend his Complaint and the statement of facts. Leave is granted to the Claimant also to file additional list of documents and to re-swear and file his Statement on Oath in line with the proposed Amended Statement of Facts filed along with this application. ii. The Amended Complaint, Amended Statement of Facts, Additional List of Documents and the Claimant's Re-sworn Statement on Oath, filed separately on the 14th day of July 2015, are deemed properly filed and served. iii. The Defendants are given 14 days from today, within which to file consequential amendments in line with the amendment hereby granted. In the 6th prayer of this application, the Claimant sought an Order directing or compelling the Defendants to give the Claimant certified true copies of the documents listed in the schedule attached to the motion. The schedule listed 37 documents which the Claimant wants the Defendant to certify for him. In his affidavit in support, the Claimant averred that it is necessary to seek the intervention of the court to direct and/or compel the Defendants to furnish him with the Certified True Copies of the documents to enable him effectively prosecute his case. He also stated that he stands little or no chance of getting the documents from the Defendants in view of his unpleasant experience with the 1st- 3rd Defendants and the adversarial nature of these proceedings. He averred further that the documents are public documents and he will be unable to procure the certified True copies of the documents from the Defendants unless ordered or directed by this court. Merely having the belief that the Defendants are not likely to certify the documents for him is not a strong reason to grant this prayer. The reasons advanced by the Claimant for seeking the prayer are quite speculative. This court does not give orders based speculation. The facts that the Claimant had unpleasant experience with the Defendants or that this proceeding is adversarial are not sufficient reasons to make the order sought by the Claimant. The Claimant must go further to show that he attempted to get the Defendants to certify the documents or that he applied for CTC of the documents but the Defendants refused to oblige him. It is only that situation, with evidence that that the documents originated from the Defendant, that this court can exercise its coercive power to order the Defendants to certify the documents. As it is, there is not enough material upon which this court can consider prayer 6 sought by the applicant. The prayer is refused. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge