Download PDF
By a motion on notice dated 2nd April, 2013 and filed on 19th April 2013, the claimants/applicants prayed for the following orders: (1) An order granting leave to amend their statements of facts, written statement on oath of the claimants/applicants first witness, and the list of documents to be relied upon by the claimants at the trial of this suit. (2) An order amending the said statement of facts, statement on oath of the claimants/applicants first witness and the list of documents to be relied upon by the claimants at the trial of this suit. (3) An order deeming the said amended statement of facts, amended statement on oath of the claimants/applicants first witness and the amended list of documents to be relied upon by the claimants at the trial of this suit as being properly filed and served on the defendant. The motion was accompanied by an affidavit in support, the proposed amended statements of facts, proposed amended written statements on oath of the claimants’ witnesses, the amended statements of facts, amended written statements on oath of the claimants’ witnesses and amended list of documents. The applicants also filed a written address in support of the motion and urged the court to grant the application. In reaction, the respondent by order of this court filed a written address in opposition to the applicants’ motion for amendment. The defendant’s written address is dated 27th May, 2013 but filed on 30/5/2013 wherein the defendant opposed vehemently arguing that the proposed amendment is aimed at overreaching the defendant more so that the said amendment is coming after parties have already closed their respective final addresses. That the proposed amendment if allowed will occasion miscarriage of justice as the claimants having read the issues raised in its final address now want to re-amend so as to ambush the defendant. The defendant therefore urged the court to reject the said amendment. I have carefully gone through the written arguments of the parties for and against the amendment. I have also listened to the oral submission of counsel in this matter. It is on records that the applicants in this case had earlier in this proceedings been granted leave to amend its processes by this court and the defendant did not even object. After the earlier amendment, parties agreed to argue this case on the records and so dispensed with the calling of witnesses to testify. The claimant as a matter of fact mooted this idea in court of which the defendant agreed. Written addresses were thus ordered by this court to be filed by parties to which parties complied with the claimants filing their written addresses first. As a matter of fact, the claimants counsel sought for and was awarded cost against the defendant when the defendant delayed in filing its final written address. Curiously after the defendant had filed its final addresses the claimant having gone through it now brought this application seeking to further amend his processes after seeing the defence or if you like the nakedness of the defendant. With this scenario I am of the view that the claimants clearly want to overreach the defendant in trying to further amend their processes. I am of the view that it will not be in the interest of the defendant if this amendment will be allowed at this stage as such will result to injustice to the defendant. I adopt the applicant’s submission in their written address that the courts have through the years taken a stand that however late the proposed amendment, it ought to be allowed if it can be done without injustice to the other party. I therefore hold that this application is overreaching as it is intended to occasion in justice against the defendant. Therefore on the authority of the following decisions SPDCN v. Edamkue [2009] 14 NWLR (pt. 1160) 1, Horsefall v. West [1999] 4 NWLR (pt. 597) 120 at 125, Chima Chipoke v. Bosede Soetan [2006] 10 NWLR (pt. 990) 179 at 212 – 213, Odon v. Bangha-Amange (No. 1) [2010] 12 NWLR (pt. 1207) 1 at 9, Mamman v. Salaudeen [1998] 2 NWLR (pt. 539) 592 at 596, Akaninwo v. Nsirim [2008] 9 NWLR (pt. 1093) 439 at 475. This application is hereby refused and is accordingly dismissed. I make no order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim