Download PDF
RULING The Claimant commenced this action against the Respondent by way of a Complaint dated 8th April, 2011 and filed on the same date. The Complaint was accompanied with Statement of Facts, List of Witnesses, List of Documents to be Relied upon, Technical Crew Consulting Agreement (Aircraft Pilots), Training Programme Bond Agreement, Re: Consultant Agreement Employment June 2008 etc. By way of response, the Respondent having failed and or neglected to file their Statement of Defence within the time allowed by the Rules of Court came by way of Motion on Notice dated 26th September, 2011 and filed the following day wherein the Respondent prayed for an order of the Court extending the time within which to file and serve their Statement of Defence and other frontloaded documents. The Motion on Notice was supported by a-9-paragraph affidavit. The Respondent also prayed for an order of the Court deeming the Statement of Defence and other frontloaded documents already filed and served as properly filed and served. The said Motion of Notice of the Respondent was moved by Counsel to the Respondent on 29th September, 2011 whereupon the Court granted the prayers sought by the Respondent as per their Motion on Notice. The Claimant having opened its case sought to take further steps. Consequently, on 24th October, 2011, the Respondent filed a Motion on Notice supported by an-11-paragraph affidavit. The Motion on Notice of 24th October, 2011 was accompanied with Proposed Amended Statement of Facts, Reply and Defence to Counter-Claim, Further List of other Documents to be relied Upon, Letter on Inducement of Breach of Contract of Employment, Direct Service Contract, Application for the Position of a Ground Instructor, Application for the Issuance of Nigerian Licence-CPL etc. In the motion on Notice, the Claimant/Applicant sought the following reliefs: 1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting leave to the Claimant/Applicant to amend the Statement of Facts by adding the underlined parts as shown in the proposed Amended Statement of Facts attached herewith as Exhibit B; 2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court granting leave to Claimant/Applicant to file supplementary documents to be relied upon consequent to such amendment; 3. AN ORDER deeming the already filed further list of documents as properly filed and served; 4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court joining Caverton Helicopters Limited (“The Party sought to be joined”) as the 2nd Defendant in this suit; and 5. AND FOR SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this suit. It is pertinent for me to also set out the grounds upon which the Claimant’s/Applicant’s prayers are based. The grounds upon which the Claimant/Applicant based his prayers as per the Motion on Notice are succinctly set out thus: 1. The amendment sought to be made to the Statement of Facts is meant to bring in facts which have recently come to the knowledge of the Claimant/Applicant and which was not previously known. 2. The amendment sought to be made to the Statement of Facts would aid the effective and effectual determination of the dispute between the parties to this suit. 3. The party sought to be joined is the current employer of the Defendant/Respondent which allegedly procured the Defendant/Respondent to breach his contractual obligations to the Claimant/Applicant by interfering with the performance of his obligations to the Applicant; and which breach has resulted in damages to the Claimant/Applicant. The party to be joined is therefore a necessary party in this suit. I have carefully reproduced the payers and grounds as contained in the Motion on Notice for purposes of unhindered clarity and understanding. In responding to the Motion on Notice filed by the Claimant/Applicant, the Respondent came by way of a Counter-Affidavit dated 21st November, 2011 and filed on the same date. The Counter-Affidavit deposed to by one Yemi Okewoye has ten (10) paragraphs. On 13th December, 2011, the Motion on Notice was heard; with Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant and that of the Respondent making their respective submissions. Moving his motion, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant submitted that the Motion on Notice was brought pursuant to Order 3 Rule 3 and Order 15 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. He submitted that the Motion on Notice was supported by an affidavit deposed to by one Oreoluwa Omotayo, a Legal Practitioner in the Firm of Solicitors to the Claimant/Applicant. He further submitted that two exhibits were attached to the Motion on Notice. These were Exhibits “A” and “B”. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant submitted that they were relying on all the paragraphs of the affidavit, particularly, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 thereof. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant argued that in an application in the nature of the one before the Court seeking to amend the claim of the Claimant, the onus is on the Respondent to show that the said amendment is malafide or that the Respondent would be prejudiced or suffer injustice as a result of the grant of the amendment sought. In support of this proposition, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant cited and relied on the case of Chief of Defence Staff Gen. O.A. Azazi & Anr V. Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Ovo Adhekegba (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1158) p. 332 at 363, para D-E. Counsel to the Claimant argued further that the general rules guiding the grant of amendment are flexible such that except there is non-compliance with the law, prejudice, unnecessary or irreparable inconveniences, the hands of the Court were free to grant an amendment. He argued that this principle is in line with the purpose for which an amendment is created; which is to determine all the real questions in controversy between the parties. Arguing his motion further, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant submitted that the principles that guide the court are considered in the light of three (3) factors which are: 1. The timing of the amendment; 2. The nature of the amendment; and 3. The attitude of the parties. Counsel submitted that paragraphs 7 & 8 of the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice state the reasons why the amendment is sought. He argued that the amendment in the instant case was sought at a time when the Claimant is still giving evidence. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant therefore argued that the time the application for amendment is sought is early enough to allow the Respondent to file a consequential amendment and also give evidence on their new amendment. Counsel to the Applicant further referred the Court to the case of Chief of Defence Staff Gen O.A. Azazi V. Chief of Army Staff supra at 364 para D-F; page 365 para G-H and page 368 para E-G. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant posited that the only reason why a court will refuse an amendment is prejudice and bad faith and argued that no such bad faith or prejudice had been shown in the Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit. On the issue of joinder as per prayer 4 on the Motion on Notice, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant referred the Court to paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice. In particular, Counsel submitted that paragraph 6 of the said affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice has not been denied in the Counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent. In this regards, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant urged the Court to deem the averment in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice as true and admitted since it has not been denied by the Respondent. On this proposition, Counsel cited and urged the Court to rely on the case of the Federal Ministry of Science & Technology & Anr V. Federal Ministry of Works & Housing & Anr (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1171) p. 510 at 523, para C. While still arguing his application, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant contended that the essence of joinder is to put an end to litigation and thus avoid a situation where proceedings in which the same issue is raised leads to two inconsistent results. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant further submitted that another reason for an application for joinder is to make the party sought to be joined to be bound by the result of the proceedings. Counsel cited the case of Federal Ministry of Science & Technology & Anr V. Federal Ministry of Works & Housing & Anr supra at 522 para B and at the same p. 522 para B-D. Counsel also referred to paragraph 6, particularly, sub-paragraph 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice. Counsel further referred to Exhibit “B” which is the Proposed Statement of Facts attached to the affidavit in support of the application. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the proposed Amended Statement of Facts was referred to by Counsel as showing the link between the party sought to be joined and the transaction which is the subject matter in this proceedings. Against the background of submissions made by Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant, Counsel submitted and urged the Court to grant the amendment sought and also that the Court should grant the prayer respecting the joinder of the party sought to be joined. According to the Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant, prayers 1& 4 on the Motion on Notice are the principal prayers while prayers 2 & 3 are consequential and anchored on prayer 1 & 4. While reacting to the Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit, Counsel to the Claimant opposed paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Counter-Affidavit on points of law. Relying on section 115(2) of the Evidence Act 2011 as amended, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant posited that paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Counter-Affidavit are legal conclusions and therefore offend section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended and urged the Court to strike out same. Counsel further submitted that once the said paragraphs are struck out, there would be no fact denying the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice. Finally, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant submitted that even if it was assumed (without conceding) that their submissions on paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Counter-Affidavit were wrong, the contents of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the Counter-Affidavit should be regarded as sweeping statements which do not amount to denial of the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice. The Court was urged by Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant to grant the application of the Claimant/Applicant and the prayers as prayed. In his response, Counsel to the Respondent submitted that they would be relying on all the ten (10) paragraphs of their Counter-Affidavit dated 2nd November, 2011 and filed same date. Counsel to the Respondent formulated two issues which according to him were germane to the determination of the Motion on Notice of the Claimant/Applicant. The issues as formulated by Counsel to the Respondent are as follows: 1. Whether the Claimant/Applicant can be allowed to introduce a new cause of action and or fundamentally add to the existing cause of action in the Statement of Claim by way of an amendment when the said new cause of action or additional cause of action was not in existence at the time of filing the Complaint by which this action was initiated? 2. Whether the presence of the party sought to be joined will be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the case as presently constituted? On Issue No. 1: Counsel to the Respondent submitted that based on the record of the Court, the originating process by which this action was commenced was filed on 8th April, 2011 while the issues the Claimant is urging the Court to bring in by way of amendment are averments of facts that arose after the commencement of this action. Counsel further contended that a perusal of the record of the Court would reveal that the Respondent filed its Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim on 27th September, 2011 and that there are only 2 parties before the Court. According to Counsel to the Respondent, the purpose of an amendment is to bring in facts which a counsel omitted or neglected to bring forward in filing his pleadings. Counsel submitted that an amendment is not granted as a matter of course. Therefore, Counsel to the Respondent argued that an important question to be considered in an application for amendment is whether the amendment sought will foster the course of justice as between the parties and if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real issues in dispute between the parties. On this proposition, Counsel referred to the case of A. U. Amadi V. Thomas Aplin & Co. (1972) 1 ANLR p. 413 at 411 where the Court stated that in determining the issue of amendment, the narrow point the Court should consider is whether the amendment will help to determine the real issue in dispute between the parties. Counsel to the Respondent contended that the submission of learned Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant to the effect that the Respondent in an application for amendment bears the burden of showing why it should not be granted was misconceived since an amendment is not granted as a matter of course and that the applicant must show that there are real issues between the parties to the suit that will not be properly determined unless the amendment is granted. Furthermore, Counsel to the Respondent relying on paragraph 4 of the Counter-Affidavit submitted that the effect of the facts the Claimant is trying to bring in would be to introduce an entirely fresh claim and a new cause of action. Counsel contended that paragraphs 3, 5, 7 & 8 of the affidavit in support of the motion show that the facts the Claimant is seeking to introduce by way of amendment arose after the commencement of this action. According to Counsel to the Respondent, Exhibit “A” which is a letter dated 28 September, 2011 attached to the Motion on Notice which was not in existence as at the time of filing this action engineered the new cause of action that was not contemplated as at the time of commencing the present suit. Counsel therefore contended that the new action the Claimant/Applicant is seeking to introduce by way of amendment is inducement of breach of contract levied against the party sought to be joined. While still opposing the application for amendment, Counsel to the Respondent posited that an amendment once granted dates back to the original date that pleadings were filed and cited the cases of Gen. Yakubu Gowon V. Mrs Edith I. Ike Okongue (1994) 2 NWLR (Pt. 326) p. 355 at 365 para N and Gen. Yakubu Gowon V. Mrs Edith I. Ike-Okongwu (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 815) p. 38 at 49 as authorities on this proposition. Counsel to the Respondent contended that the argument of Counsel to the Claimant that paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the Counter-Affidavit offend section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended was misconceived since according to Counsel, paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the Counter-Affidavit contain facts and not legal conclusions, opinions or issues of law. In particular, Counsel to the Respondent submitted that the case of Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Azazi & Anr V. Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Ovo Adhekegba supra cited by Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant is not helpful to the case of the Claimant/Applicant because an authority can only constitute a binding precedent where the decision sought to be followed as a matter of law relates to and is on all fours with the facts of the case under consideration. On this proposition, Counsel cited and relied on the case of Afro-Continental Nig. Ltd. V. Ayantuyi (1991) 3 NWLR (Pt. 178) p. 211…. At 231 paras. A-B. On issue No. 2: Counsel to the Respondent argued that if after considering Exhibit “B” attached to the affidavit in support of the motion on notice the Court comes to the conclusion that the cause that the Claimant is seeking to introduce by way of amendment relates to a cause of action that arose after the commencement of this action then there would be no basis to bring in the party sought to be joined. Counsel submitted that the essence of the joinder of a party is for him to be bound by the decision of the Court and to assist the Court to settle the issues or questions in the case. Hence, Counsel to the Respondent submitted that the issue between the parties as presently constituted before the Court is that of breach of contract which can be determined without the necessity of joining the party sought to be joined. Counsel cited the case of Alfa V. Atanda (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 292) p. 729 at 732. Finally, Counsel to the Respondent urged the Court to dismiss the application of the Claimant/Applicant. Counsel to the Respondent having concluded his arguments, Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant replied on point of law and submitted that a new cause of action can form the basis of an amendment if it is shown that it flows from the same transaction. Counsel further cited the case of Chief of Defence Staff Gen. O. A. Azazi V. Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Ovo Adhekegba supra at p. 368 para. E-G. I have carefully perused and considered the submissions of learned Counsel on both sides as well as the authorities cited and relied upon. I am inclined to formulate two issues for the determination of the application. Issue No. 1: Whether considering all the circumstances of this case, it is proper to grant the amendment sought by the Claimant/Applicant as per his Motion on Notice under consideration? Secondly, whether the joinder of the party sought to be joined is necessary for effective and effectual determination of this case? The purpose of an amendment is to ensure that the issues or questions in controversy between the parties are determined and thereby put an end to litigation. See the case of Chief of Defence Staff Gen. O. A. Azazi & Anr V. Chief of Army Staff Lt. Ge. L. N. Ovo Adhekegba supra p. 332 at p. 368 paras. D-E. It is also well settled by a line of cases that an amendment will be granted except there is evidence of bad faith or such prejudice that cannot be compensated in cost. See the cases of A. U. Amadi V. Thomas Aplin & Co. Ltd. supra p. 413 at 421-423 and Chief of Defence Staff Gen. O.A. Azazi & Anr. V. Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. L.N. Ovo Adhekegba supra p. 332 at p. 339. The court has ample powers of amendment at all stages until the final determination of the case. On this point see the Supreme Court of Nigeria case of Gen. Yakubu Gowon V. Mrs Edith I Ike-Okongwu & Anr supra p. 38 at 48 para. G. Interestingly, consideration of an application for amendment has been expressed in terms of a right accruing to the applicant and a corresponding duty on the court to grant application for amendment except where there is evidence that it would occasion injustice or that the application is made malafide. On this proposition, see the case of Chief of Defence Staff Gen. O. A. Azazi & Anr V. Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. L. N. Ovo Adhekegba supra pp. 363 para. C; 365 paras. G-H. An amendment will be granted even where the amendment would add to the existing cause of action. It is equally the position of the law that the Respondent in an application for amendment bears the burden of showing that the application was brought in bad faith or that such an application is prejudicial to the respondent. See the case of Chief Asuquo I. Amanso & Anr. V. The Registered Trustees of the Deliverance Church (2009) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1170) 207 at pp. 216 paras F-G; 219 paras A-D. See also Chief of Defence Staff Gn. O. A. Azazi & Anr. V. Chief of Army Staff Lt. Gen. Ovo Aghekegba supra at 332 at363 paras. D-E where the Court of Appeal held that a party opposing an application for an amendment bears an uneasy task and unless the party is able to establish bad faith, prejudice, unnecessary expense or irreparable inconvenience, the hands of the courts were free to grant an amendment. I am of the view that the Claimant/Applicant has clearly set out the circumstances or facts that have necessitated the application for amendment in the affidavit in support of the motion. In this particular respect, the averments in paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice are germane. What is more, I have also considered the nature of the averments in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit against the backdrop of the submission of Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant. Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant had opposed paragraphs 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Counter-Affidavit on point of law arguing that the paragraphs offend section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended the same being a legal arguments. I cannot agree the more with the submission of Counsel to the Claimant/Applicant in this respect. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit when considered in the light of the letter and spirit of section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended and have come to the inevitable conclusion that the paragraphs contravene the provision of section 115(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011 as amended. Consequently, paragraphs 4, 5, 6 & 7 of the Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit are hereby struck out. This in effect means that paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the Claimant’s affidavit in support are neither denied nor controverted by the Respondent and are therefore deemed admitted by the Respondent. See the case of Federal Ministry of Science & Technology & Anr V. Federal Ministry of Works & Housing & Anr supra p. 510 at p. 523 para. C. In the light of the principles and authorities I have made reference to above, and given the fact that the application is rightly premised on Order 3 Rule 3 of the NIC Rules, 2007 I hereby grant prayers 1, 2 & 3 as contained in the motion on notice. I have arrived at this conclusion fully aware of the fact that the Respondent has not shown bad faith, irreparable inconvenience or unnecessary cost which the grant of this application might occasion. I have also adverted my mind to the fact that the Respondent has time to react appropriately to the proposed amendment. I now proceed to consider prayers 4 & 5 of the Claimant/Applicant as per the motion on Notice against the backdrop of issue No. 2 that I have formulated above. It is trite law that the purpose of joinder of parties in an action is to enable to court to effectively and effectually adjudicate upon and settle all issues in controversy in a matter. By the same token, the essence of joinder of parties is twofold. First, to put an end to litigation and not to have two parallel proceedings in which the same issue is raised, leading to different and inconsistent results. Secondly, the essence of joinder of parties is to make the party joined to be bound by the outcome of the litigation – see Federal Ministry of Science & Technology & Anr. V. Federal Ministry of Work & Housing & Anr. supra 510 at pp. 522 paras. B; B-D. See also the case of Ajose V. U. A. C. N. (2004) 48 WRN 79 (issue 6). It is important for me to make reference to paragraph 6 sub-paragraphs (ii) – (v) of the affidavit in support of the Motion on Notice. These depositions have not been denied by the Respondent in his Counter-Affidavit and are therefore deemed to be true. Important too is the fact that the crux of the present Claim is that the Respondent breached an existing contract he has with the Claimant. It is noteworthy that a key plank on which the present application rests is that the party sought to be joined procured the Respondent to breach his obligations to the Claimant. Invariably, there is a nexus between allegation of breach of contract and facts to tending to establish the procurement of such breach. I have also adverted my mind to sub-paragraph (v) of paragraph 6 of the affidavit in support of the application wherein the Claimant avers that it has claims against the party sought to be joined. The general principle is that a party will not be joined as a defendant except the plaintiff has a claim against the person or the interest of the existing defendant is the same with the interest of the person seeking to be joined – see the case of Federal Ministry of Science & Technology & Anr. V. Federal Ministry of Work & Housing & Anr supra pp. 520 paras. F-G; 522 paras. A-B. For all the above reasons and the authorities cited and considered, I will be going against the grain of well established principles respecting joinder of parties if I refused prayer 4 of the Claimant. I hereby grant prayers 4 and 5 on the Motion on Notice. Consequently, Caverton Helicopters Limited is hereby ordered to be joined as a co-defendant in this suit. In sum total, the prayers of the Claimant/Applicant are hereby granted as prayed.