Download PDF
RULING 1. This is a 2012 case, the claimants having commenced this action vide a complaint filed on 29th November 2012 with the accompanying originating processes. On 6th September 2013, the claimants/applicants filed a motion on notice pursuant to Order 19 Rule 11 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007, Order 43 of the Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules, Order 26 Rule 8 of the Lagos State High Court Civil Procedure Rules praying in the main for an order on the 2nd defendant/respondent to produce in Court the Sales Purchase Agreement entered into by both defendants/respondents over Oil Mining Lease 42 (OML 42). In a considered ruling delivered on 25th February 2014, the said motion was held to have no merit; and was accordingly struck out. On 22nd June 2016, the claimants again moved another motion filed on 14th May 2015 praying for leave to amend their originating processes. Once again, in a considered bench ruling delivered on same 22nd June 2016 the Court agreed with the defendants that the claimants’ proposed amendments seek to substantially change the character of the claimants’ case and so would overreach the defendants, if allowed. The said application of the claimants was found not to have any merit, and so was dismissed. 2. The claimants have again by a motion filed on 10th February 2017 prayed this Court for leave to: amend their originating processes (complaint and statement of facts) in the manner they proposed; call an additional witness, file list of additional witness as well as the written deposition of the additional witness; file an additional written statement on oath of the witness on record consequent upon the amendment as well as the additional list of documents. The claimants also prayed for a deeming order. In all of this, actual trial had not even commenced for a case the claimants filed in 2012. 3. The claimants gave as reasons for the amendment the fact that they omitted, due to the inadvertence of their counsel, to frontload the letters of employment of each of the claimants, their counsel while preparing for the case found a directive/guideline issued by Ministry of Petroleum Resources that would assist the Court in settling once and for all the controversy between the parties and the amendment would thus afford the claimants place before the Court all facts, information and materials that wold enable the Court properly resolve the issues in controversy between the parties, citing Ojah v. Ogboji [1976] 1 NMLR 95, Cropper v. Smith (1884) 26 ChD 700 and Adeleye v. Akin-Olugbade [1987] 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 214. The claimant went on that this Court is a specialized Court not bound by strict rules of legality or formalism, citing National Union of Chemical & Non-Metallic Workers v. Management of Metal Box Toyo Glass Ltd [1978 - 2006] DJNIC page 140, which held that this Court has the power to admit additional or further evidence. The claimants accordingly urged the Court to exercise its discretion in its favour and grant the application. 4. The 1st defendant opposed the claimants’ application for amendment, and filed a counter-affidavit and a written address. To the 1st defendant, the claimants cannot seek for an amendment as to change the character of the case they presented before the Court or set up a new cause of action under the guise of an amendment, citing Order 26 Rule 1(2) of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017. That the instant amendment sought by the claimants is a ploy to rectify and correct all the vices and defects inherent in their case as already pointed out by the 1st defendant in its statement of defence, citing China Chijioke v. Bosde Alice B. Soetan [2006] 10 NWLR (Pt. 990) 179. The 1st defendant went on to compare the reliefs claimed as at 29th November 2012 and the reliefs presently claimed as per the proposed amendment, and then referred the Court to Horsfall v. West [1999] 4 NWLR (Pt. 597) 120 at 125 and China Chijioke v. Bosde Alice B. Soetan [2006] 10 NWLR (Pt. 990) 179 at 212 - 213. The 1st defendant then submitted that paragraph 30 of the statement of facts and the reliefs as proposed introduced totally new issues by importing the legal issue of the Minister’s consent for the first time also brought in new monetary claims, which were not originally in the statement of facts, thus changing the character of the claimants’ case. The 1st defendant urged the Court to note the several motions filed by the claimants, which motions were struck out. That where an amendment is sought purposely for a case to loose its proper meaning by reason of derailment, then it is done in bad faith, citing Yusuf v. Adegoke [2008] Vol 40 WRN 1 at 47. The 1st defendant then urged the Court to refuse the application of the claimants. 5. The 2nd defendant also opposed the claimants’ motion for amendment by filing a counter-affidavit and a written address. The 2nd defendant also relied on Order 26 Rule 1(2) of the NICN Rules 2017 in opposing the claimants’ motion, arguing that the endorsement of the proposed amended complaint was done contrary to the provisions of the said Order 26 Rule 1(2). The 2nd defendant also compared the existing reliefs as against the proposed relief and also submitted that the claimants are only trying to present a completely different case in terms of the amendment they seek. Also that in the existing reliefs, the claimants are seeking for 7 reliefs, whereas in the proposed amendment, they are seeking for 9 reliefs, reliefs (a) and (b) of which are contained in the initial reliefs. The 2nd defendant cited a number of case law authorities and then submitted that the amendment sought by the claimants is in bad faith and so should be refused. 6. In response, the claimants filed two further and better affidavits with accompanying reply addresses to the counter-affidavits and written addresses of the 2 defendants. The reply submissions of the claimants in terms of the submissions of the 2nd defendant are to the effect that the instant amendment sought is not the same with the previous ones struck out; and that the reliefs presently sought are reliefs differently against the two defendants. Also that the amendments they seek are innocuous and satisfy the requirements of Order 26 Rule 1(2) of the NICN Rules 2017. The claimants then referred to Benjamin Maduabuchi v. AG of Lagos State {2012] LPELR-8022(CA) and High Chief Enock Oguneyehun & ors v. The Governor of Ondo State & ors [2007] LPELR-4239(CA). In any event, that the claimants are allowed to amend if it is meant to further claims arising out of same and existing cause of action subsequent to the issue of the writ, citing Fidelis Nwadialo’s Civil Procedure in Nigeria, 2nd edition at page 474 and Oguma v. IBWA [1988] 1 NWLR (Pt. 73) 658 SC. 7. In terms of the submissions of the 1st defendant, the claimants also relied on section 6(6)(a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution but did not state how the section is helpful to their application for amendment, except to state that since errors may occur, the framers of the Rules of Court have allowed for amendments, citing Nalsa & Team Associates v. NNPC [1991] 8 NWLR (Pt. 212) 652 at 676; and that to deny the claimants the amendments sought would be to deny them their right to lay their complaint. That an amendment can be made by introducing a new cause of action or substituting a fresh one for the original provided that the facts in the additional new cause of action are substantially same with that which the plaintiff has already claimed, citing Con Oil Plc v. Dutse [2016] LPELR-40236(CA). The claimants then simply proceeded to reargue their position bringing in points that they seemed to have forgotten to bring in their initial written address. Now, a reply on points of law is meant to be just what it is, a reply on points of law. It is not meant for the party replying on points of law to reargue its case or bring in points it forgot to advance when it filed its final written address. Alternatively put, a reply on points of law is not meant to improve on the quality of a written address; a reply brief is not a repair kit to correct or put right an error or lacuna in the initial brief of argument. See Dr Augustine N. Mozie & ors v. Chike Mbamalu [2006] 12 SCM (Pt. I) 306; [2006] 27 NSCQR 425, Basinco Motors Limited v. Woermann Line & anor [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149; [2009] 8 SCM 103, Ecobank (Nig) Ltd v. Anchorage Leisures Ltd & ors [2016] LPELR-40220(CA), UBA Plc v. Ubokolo [2009] LPELR-8923(CA) and Musaconi Ltd v. Aspinall [2013] LPELR-20745(SC). 9. I indicated in very brief words, the antecedents of the claimants’ penchant for applying for amendment of their originating processes, a penchant that has resulted in this case not proceeding to trial since 2012 when it was filed. The claimants argue that the amendment they presently seek is innocuous. If in truth it is innocuous I really wonder why they are seeking for the said amendment and not pursuing the resolution of their case on merit; after all they are the claimants, and must be read to be more interested in the speedy resolution of this case. 10. The claimants gave inter alia as reasons for the amendment they seek the fact that they omitted, due to the inadvertence of their counsel, to frontload the letters of employment of each of the claimants; and that their counsel while preparing for the case found a directive/guideline issued by Ministry of Petroleum Resources that would assist the Court in settling once and for all the controversy between the parties. The claimants’ counsel was briefed in 2012 by the claimants. It is worrying that it is only in 2017 while preparing for this case that they found a directive/guideline issued by the Ministry of Petroleum Resources that would assist this Court in resolving the instant suit. This thing about flaunting inadvertence of counsel as some kind of magic wand is worrying. Quite rightly, Iroegbu v. Okwordu [1990] 6 NWLR (Pt. 158) 643 and Erinfolabi v. Oke [1995] 5 NWLR (Pt. 395) 296 have cautioned that inadvertence or mistake of counsel has been relied upon as the basis for the present application. But the point that must be vigorously emphasized is that the rule which enjoins courts not to visit the inadvertence or mistake of counsel on the litigant is not intended to be a universal talisman the waiver of which will act as a panacea in all cases. Before the plea is accepted, the court must not only be satisfied that the allegation of fault of counsel is true and genuine, but also that it is availing having regard to the circumstances of the particular case. The antecedents of this case in terms of the amendments previously sought by the claimants’ counsel do not suggest that the allegation of inadvertence of the claimants’ counsel is true and genuine. 11. In James Adekunle Owulade v. Nigerian Agip Oil Co. Ltd [2015] 63 NLLR (Pt. 222) 199, this Court reviewed the authorities on amendment of pleadings in the following words: …the general rule is that an amendment will be granted if it is for the purpose of determining in the existing suit the real question(s) in controversy between the parties. In fact the recent Supreme Court decision in Compagnie Generale De Geophysique & anor v. Jumbo Idorenyin LER[2015]296/2005 per Peter-Odili, JSC is to the effect that an amendment is seldom refused by the court. This rule was laid down as far back as the 19th Century by Bowen LJ in Cropper v. Smith (1884) 26 Ch.D 700 at 710 and 711. However, this general rule is subject to the qualification that the amendment will be granted if it is not fraudulent or intended to overreach the opposing party i.e. so long as it will not occasion an injustice on the opposing party. See also Shoe Machinery Co. Ltd v. Cutlan (1896) 1 Ch. 108 at 112. It is from these early cases that the more recent cases developed additional qualifications for the rule permitting amendment of pleadings. For instance, an amendment of pleadings should be allowed unless: it will entail injustice to the opposing party; the applicant is acting mala fide; by the applicant’s blunder, the application occasions an injustice on the opposing party which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise. See Ojah & ors v. Ogboni & ors [1976] All NLR 277; [1976] 4 SC 69, Oguntimehin v. Gubere [1964] 1 All NLR 176 at 179 and Amadi v. Thomas Aplin & Co. Ltd [1972] 1 All NLR 409. With time, more qualifications were made to the rule. For instance, an amendment to create a suit where none exists could not be granted. Also an amendment to change the nature of the claims before the Court will not be granted if the amendment would not cure the defect in the pleadings. See Hong v. Federal Mortgage Finance Ltd [2001] FWLR (Pt. 62) 1898. Furthermore, a defendant will not be allowed to raise by way of an amendment to the statement of defence a counterclaim in respect of a cause of action that arose subsequent to the issue of the writ. See Gowon v. Ike-Okongwu [2003] 13 NSCQR 353. Additionally, an amendment will be refused where the effect of its being allowed is to wipe out the proceedings and substitute another. See Nwabueze v. NIPOST [2006] 8 NWLR (Pt. 983) 480. And an amendment if fraudulent, intended to overreach, is in bad faith, would cause avoidable delay, would take the plaintiff by surprise, introduce new matters, or work injustice against one of the parties in the suit will be rejected. See Compagnie Generale De Geophysique & anor v. Jumbo Idorenyin LER[2015]296/2005. The Court proceeded to hold that “the golden rule of an amendment is that it must not thereby overreach the opposing party”. In the process, the Court rejected an amendment which inter alia sought to bring in assertions to the effect that the claimant’s retirement by the defendant was in violation of Regulation 15A of the Petroleum Drilling and Production Amendment Regulations 1988 as the prior approval of the Minister of Petroleum Resources was not sought and obtained by the defendant before the claimant’s retirement; and the assertion that it was the refusal of the defendant to obey the laws of Nigeria as well as show due regard to constituted authority that led to the filing of this suit. Now, the very document to establish these assertions in James Adekunle Owulade v. Nigerian Agip Oil Co. Ltd is the same document in issue in the instant case, and which the claimants seek inter alia to bring in. 12. I took a closer look at the amendments sought to be made by the claimants. I agree with the defendants that they introduce additional causes of action in terms of the reliefs the claimants are praying for. It is curious that in 2012 when this suit was filed, the claimants and their counsel did not think it right to claim the reliefs they now seek to claim, and it is only in 2017 that it dawned on them to claim the said reliefs. In introducing these additional causes of action, I am satisfied that thereby the defendants have been overreached by the claimants. The argument of the claimants that the amendments are innocuous and due to the inadvertence of their counsel cannot just stand. On the whole, I see no merit in this application of the claimants. It fails and is hereby dismissed. 13. Ruling is entered accordingly. Cost is put at Three Hundred Thousand Naira (N300,000) payable by the claimants to the defendants (at N150,000 to each defendant) within 30 days of this ruling. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip