Download PDF
RULING In a motion on notice filed by the Claimants on 8th August 2018, they sought an order of this court for leave to amend their Complaint and statement of facts. The grounds contained on the motion for seeking the prayer is are follows: i. The Claimants recently changed counsel in the matter ii. An analysis of the Claimants’ case by the new counsel reveals the need to amend the Claimants’ Complaint and Statement of facts in order to bring in new facts that would assist this court appreciate and determine the real issues in the suit. iii. By the rules of this court, the Claimants are allowed to amend their originating process before trial iv. The matter is yet to proceed to trial. In the affidavit of Olajide Adekanye Esq., a legal practitioner in the law firm of the counsel representing the Claimants in this action, it was deposed that the Claimants had initially amended their complaint and statement of facts on 10th January 2017 but the Claimant’s new counsel, during case management meeting with the Claimants, discovered that some material facts where omitted from the Complaint and statement of facts by the previous counsel of the Claimants. The input of those omitted facts will help the court to properly determine the issues between the parties in the suit. The Claimants have now incorporated the omitted facts into the amendment sought to be made to the complaint and statement of facts. It was also averred that the amendment sought is necessary to resolve the real issues in the suit. The proposed amended complaint and statement of facts exhibited to the affidavit is marked Exhibit PA. Counsel for the Claimant, in the written address in support of the motion, submitted a sole issue for determination to wit: whether it is in the interest of justice to grant the relief sought by the applicant. Arguing the issue, learned counsel for the Claimants, Mr. I. B. Ayuba Esq, cited the provisions of Order 26 Rule 1 of the NICN Rules 2017 and the cases of AKANINWO vs. NSIRIM (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 493 and OJAH vs. OGBONI (1976) 10 N.S.C.C. 244 to support his submission that the amendment sought by the Claimants should be allowed. Counsel further submitted that the facts deposed in the affidavit in support of the motion disclose that the amendment sought will not cause injustice to the Defendant, but it will rather afford the Claimants the opportunity to present the whole of their case. Counsel also submitted that the Claimants have placed enough materials before this court to enable the court exercise its discretion in favour of granting the application. The Defendant opposed the Claimants’ motion vide a counter affidavit deposed to by Ademola Adegoke Esq., a legal practitioner in the law firm of the counsel for the Defendant in this matter. The substance of the counter affidavit or the reasons for opposing the motion is contained in paragraph 5 of the affidavit. The deposition in this paragraph goes as follows: “5. I was informed by Omachi A. Daniel Esq., the lead counsel and partner of O. J. Onoja (SAN) & Associates on 21/08/2018 around 12:15 pm in our office during the course of my official duties and I verily believe the following facts to be true: (a) That the application of the claimants/applicants is brought malafide and aimed at overreaching the defendant/ respondent in this matter. (b) That an application for amendment will not be granted where same will entail injustice to the respondent or where it is brought malafide. (c) That the application, if granted, will cause untold hardship on the defendant/respondent. (d) That the motion before the court is incompetent and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear it. An affidavit to be used in proceedings before a court, as required in Section 115 (1) and (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, shall contain only statements of facts. An affidavit is incompetent when it contains extraneous matter, by way of objection, prayer or legal argument or conclusion. See BAMAIYI vs. STATE (2001) 8 NWLR (Pt. 715) 276 at 289. The depositions in paragraph 5 of the Defendant’s counter affidavit have offended the above known and basic rules governing affidavits. I find that the averments in the paragraph are complete objections, legal arguments and conclusions. These matters are not fit to be contained in an affidavit and their presence in paragraph 5 of the Defendant’s counter affidavit renders the offending paragraph incompetent. The paragraph is hereby struck out. The remaining averments in the Defendant’s counter affidavit are immaterial matters in respect of this application. In the written address of the Defendant’s counsel in support of the counter affidavit, counsel for the Defendant, submitted that the Claimants’ application ought not to be granted in the interest of justice. It was also argued that the grant of the application will occasion injustice to the Defendant and that the amendment will overreach the Defendant. Counsel submitted in conclusion that the Claimants have not adduced sufficient evidence for the grant of their motion. Counsel urged the court to refuse the Claimants’ application. COURT’S DECISION I have mentioned earlier that the substance of the Defendant’s opposition to the Claimants’ motion is contained in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit which paragraph has now been struck out. In view of the striking out of the paragraph, the Defendant has not given any reason why the Claimants’ application for amendment should be refused. The general principle of law is that courts have the inherent powers to allow amendments to originating processes and pleadings of the parties at any stage of the proceedings. This inherent power of the court is provided for in Order 26 Rules, 1, 2 and 3 of the NICN Rules 2017 which permits this court to allow amendments to originating processes and pleadings of the parties where its purpose is to determine the real question or issue between parties and would secure substantial justice or settle the controversy between parties. Thus, the exercise of this power to allow amendment is at the discretion of this court which discretion is to be exercised in favour of doing justice in each particular case. The reason for seeking the amendment has been given in the affidavit in support of the motion. The Claimants recently changed their counsel. The new counsel has discovered some facts not pleaded in the Claimants’ case. I have also examined the proposed amendment in Exhibit PA of the Claimants’ affidavit. The amendment sought to be made in the processes by the Claimant are additional facts to enable the Claimants put before this court the whole facts of their case. To allow the amendment will aid in the determination of the real issues in dispute between the parties. In my considered view also, the amendment sought will not overreach the Defendant nor result in injustice to the Defendant who has not said anything to the contrary. The whole essence of allowing amendment to pleading is to enable parties present the whole of their case before the court. Leave to amend pleadings ought to be allowed if by so doing the real question between the parties can be raised between the parties. See BANK OF BARODA vs. IYALABANI COMPANY LTD (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 494 at 527; NIGERIAN DYNAMIC LTD vs. DUMBAI (2002) FWLR (Pt. 105) 823 at 831; IGWE vs. KALU (2002) FWLR (Pt. 97) 677 at 712. Having considered all the circumstances of the Claimants’ application, I think it is in the interest of justice and fair hearing to grant leave to the Claimants to amend their processes. Accordingly, the Claimants’ application is granted. Leave is granted to the Claimants to amend the Complaint and statement of facts in the manner shown in the proposed amendment annexed as Exhibit PA. The Claimants are given 14 days from today to file and serve the amended Complaint and statement of facts. The Defendant is also given 14 days from the date of service of the amended complaint and statement of facts upon them, within which to file any consequential amendments arising from this amendment. No order as to cost. Ruling is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge