RULING. 1. This is an application dated 17th day of September 2019 and filed on the same day by the Claimant/Applicant. The application was brought pursuant to Order 26 Rule 1(1) (a) (b), 4, 10 and 11 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The application is praying for:- 1. An order of this Honourable Court for leave to amend paragraphs 23 and 36 of the Claimant’s statement of claim/facts. 2. An order of this Honourable Court amending paragraph 23 and 36 of the statement of claim/facts. 3. An order of this Honourable Court deeming the proposed and filed amended statement of claim/facts as duly or properly filed and served. 4. And for such further order (s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. 3. The application is supported by an 18 paragraphs affidavit and a written address. 4. Mr. K. S. Olorunisola, Esq; counsel for the Claimant/Applicant in his oral adumbration relied on all the paragraphs of the affidavit in support and adopts the written address as his argument. In the written address counsel formulated two issues for determination. They are:- I. Whether the Honourable Court has power to grant this application. II. Whether the amendment sought to (sic) done is necessary. 5. In arguing issue one; counsel contended that the rules of this Honourable Court under Order 26 Rule (1) (a), (b), 4, 10 and 11 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria give this Court power to grant this application. 6. On issue two; counsel contended that in an application of this nature the court is to consider interest of justice in the grant or refusal of an application of this nature. On this contention counsel relied on the case of AMADI V THOMAS APLIN AND COMPANY LTD (1972) LPELR-444 (SC). It is the contention of counsel that the amendment being sought is necessary and proper. It is in tandem with the spirit of justice of this matter. It forms the basis of one of the Claimant’s claims before the Court. Counsel also argued that rules of Court allows for amendment after close of trial before judgment. However, interest of justice remains paramount consideration before the Court. Counsel submitted that both the claimant and the defendant have made submissions on issue of payment or non-payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. 7. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to grant this application in the overall interest of justice. 8. In reaction to the application for amendment, the Defendant/Respondent filed a 15 paragraphs counter-affidavit in opposition to the application for amendment. 9. In his oral submissions before the court, Mr. Maxwell Chiemeke, Esq; counsel for the Defendant/Respondent contended that order 26 of the rules of this court allows amendment where its purpose is to determine the real question or issue between parties. However, order 26 Rule 2 empowers this Court to refuse an application for amendment where it would present completely different case or cause injustice to the other party or where the application for amendment is brought mala fide or where it will necessitate further hearing of evidence especially on appeal. Where it will also not cure the defects in the procedure sought to be cured or where it is inconsistent and useless. It will amount to overreaching the other party or an abuse of Court process. 10. Counsel contended that claimant instituted this action on 5/12/17 and had all the opportunities to amend the said paragraphs 23 and 36 of the Claimant/Applicant’s statement of facts but rather waited until parties have closed their respective cases, filed and served their respective final address. And having the opportunity to read and digest Defendant/Respondent’s final written address and waited for over two months after the last adjournment and three days to the adoption of the final written addresses before filing and serving the Defendant/Respondent’s counsel with a motion for amendment. 11. Counsel also contended that the motive behind the application is to overreach the Defendant/Respondent. 12. Counsel also submitted that if the application is granted it will put the Defendant/Respondent in a position that it cannot respond positively. Counsel submitted litigation is not booby trap available to so-called clever party. 13. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to refuse the application. COURT’S DECISION 14. I have carefully and painstakingly perused the application of the claimant seeking for amendment and the response of the defendant in opposition to the application. 15. The rules of Court are very clear on issue of amendment. The Court has been adequately empowered by the rules to consider application of this nature and grant or refuse same. It is trite that an application of this nature can be brought at any time before judgment is delivered by the court. This clearly means that any party in a suit can approach the court for amendment of his/her Court process(s) in so far as judgment has not been delivered. See BELICT NIGERIA LIMITED V ALI MUSTAPHA KACHALLA (1995) 12 SCNJ 147, GENERA YAKUBU GOWON V EDITH IKE-OKWONGWU & ORS. (2003) 1 SC (PT.III) 57, SHELL V AMBA (1999) 2 SCM 75. 16. In considering application for amendment courts are enjoined to be more interested in doing substantial justice. Courts are to approach the question or issue of amendment liberally particularly where such amendment will meet ends of justice. See AKIO ABEY & 5 ORS. V CHIEF ALHAJI IBRAHIM FABURA ALEX & 2 ORS. (1999) 12 SCNJ 234, UBN PLC V LAWAL (supra). However, this does not mean that an application for amendment should be granted as a matter of course. The court has discretion to exercise which has to be judicially and judiciously exercised. Where the intention for amendment is to clarify the issues in controversy between the parties or remove any possible injustice in the case and is not to overreach the adverse party, an amendment should be granted. SEE OGIDI V EGBA (1999) 10 NWLR (PT.621) 42. 17. It is to be remembered that the wide and extensive powers of court to grant amendment are designed to prevent failure of justice due to procedural errors, mistakes and defects and they are exercised to further and serve the aim of justice. The powers of amendment are intended to make more effective the function of the court to determine the true substantive merits of the case, to have more regard to substance than form, and thus to free the parties and the court from technicalities or formalities of procedure and to correct errors and defects in the proceedings. However, such extensive power would, by no means, translate to a carte blanch for effecting amendments which not only seek to overreach the adversary by attempting to alter the nature of the defence, or for unfairly prejudicing the claimant or which if granted would entail further evidence to be led on both sides, although one of them had already closed his case. Simply put an amendment will be refused where, if allowed it will entail injustice; or surprise or cause embarrassment to the other; or where the applicant is acting mala fide; or where the respondent cannot be compensated with costs or otherwise. In other words, where such an amendment will prejudice the case of the other party to the extent that injustice will occur, the court would refuse the application for the amendment of pleadings, see CGG NIG. LTD V IDORENYIN (2015) 13 NWLR (PT.1475) 149, OKEOWO V MIGIORE (1979) 11 SC 138, OJAH V OGBANI (1976) 1 NMLR 95, AMADI V THOMAS APLIN AND CO. LTD (1972) 1 ALL NLR 409. OJOGBORO V KUKU (1986) 3 NWLR (PT.31) 697, STATE V GWONTU (1983) 1 SCNLR 142, MAERKS LINE V ADDIDE INVESTMENT LTD (2002) 11 NWLR (PT.778) 317. 18. I have carefully studied paragraphs 23 and 36 of the proposed amendment by the Claimant, it is clear to me that the amendment sought is to bring the pleading of the Claimant in line with the evidence elicited under cross-examination from CW1, regarding payment of one Month salary in lieu of notice. To my mind the proposed amendment will not overreach the Defendant since no new case is being made or new claim being introduced. Rather the amendment will bring the full facts before the Court in order to assist the court do justice to the parties. The main purpose for seeking amendment is to afford the Court opportunity to have before it all the facts to assist in doing justice to the parties involved in a dispute. 19. In the affidavit in support it was deposed that the reason for this application was the mistake of counsel who wrongly stated the facts. 20. A perusal of the evidence of CW1 will clearly show that it is in line with the proposed amendment. 21. In the circumstance I am of the view that this application if granted will bring the facts pleaded to be in line with the evidence under cross-examination. This means that the amendment if granted will assist the Court in having the facts before it to enable the court decide on the dispute with the benefit of hind side of all the facts. 22. In the circumstance I hold that the application has merit it deserve to be granted and I hereby grant it accordingly. The proposed amendment already filed before the court is deemed properly filed and served. 23. Ruling entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.