Media
- Home
- Details
Portharcourt – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Polycarp Hamman of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Portharcourt Judicial division has dismissed the application for motion on notice filed by Mr. Joseph Edobor seeking for amendment of fact in a matter filed against Port Harcourt Electricity Distribution Company Ltd and other.
The court held that granting such application will not only prolong the trial of the matter but will equally overreach the Defendants and also change the character of the case since pleadings have been closed.
On the 23rd of January, 2019, the Claimant/Applicant’s filed Motion on Notice praying among others for An Order of the Honourable Court allowing the Claimant/Applicant to further amend his Complaint and Statement of Claim in this suit in line with the Memorandum/Schedules of Amendment which Proposed Further Amended Complaint and Further Proposed Amended Statement of Claim are attached to this Motion as Exhibits A, A1, A2, and A3 respectively.
The sole ground for the application was that the facts disclosed before the Honourable Court, the 1st and 2nd Defendants being the successors-in-title of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria Plc, are jointly liable to the claims of the Claimant hence there is the need to reflect same in the pleadings.
While arguing this lone Issue, the learned counsel for the Claimant/Applicant submitted that, amendment can be granted by the court at any time of the proceedings but before determination of the real issues in controversy if the amendment sought is not for the purpose of making a new case or if it would not embarrass or overreach the opposite party.
The 1st Defendant did not oppose the application, but the counsel to 2nd Defendant (Nigerian Electricity Liability Management Company Ltd/Gte) in opposition to the Application submitted that, the amendment sought by the Claimant seeks to give the suit a new outlook thereby undermining the 2nd Defendant’s defence before the court that if the amendment sought is granted it will over-reach the 2nd Defendant.
In Reply on Points of Law, the claimant submitted that the amendment sought will not in any way over-reach the 2nd Defendant, but to bring before the court the real issues in controversy between the parties for a just determination of the suit.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides, the Court presided by Hon. Justice Polycarp Hamman expressed thus;
“The law is trite that the basic aim or purpose of amending a court process is to correct errors in the said court process so as to prevent the justice of the case from being defeated due to such errors or inadvertence of counsel.
“Having considered the particulars of the amendment sought, it is clear that the Claimant/Applicant seeks to add the phrase “sued severally and jointly” to the names of the Defendants in the originating processes and replace ‘1st and 2nd Defendants’ with the word ‘defendants’, as well as the word ‘its’ with the word ‘their’ in all the originating processes.
“Having examined all the circumstances of this application, I am of the humble view that granting the application will not only prolong the trial of this matter being a 2013 case but will equally overreach the Defendants and also change the character of the case since pleadings have been closed.
"Accordingly, I hold that the application is unmeritorious, same fails and is hereby dismissed."
