BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISON 

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. A. YELWA.....JUDGE

 

THURSDAY, 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2026            

SUIT NO:NICN/LA/379/2022

 

BETWEEN:

MR BUSARI ABUBAKRE GBENGA      -           CLAIMANT/APPLICANT

 

AND

MICRONOWA PHARMACEUTICAL IND. LTD - DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

 

 

RULING

 

By a Motion on Notice dated and filed 7/11/2025, the Claimant/Applicant seeks for the following reliefs;

1. AN ORDER of this HONOURABLE COURT granting LEAVE to the Claimant/Applicant to amend his Reply to the Defendant's Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter Claim attached to the affidavit in support of this application as EXHIBIT A.

 2. AN ORDER of this HONOURABLECOURT granting LEAVE to the Claimant/ Applicant to reopen his case and recall his witness CW1 for sole purpose of tendering his Zenith Bank Plc’s statement of account and FCMB’s statement in all his salaries, incentives and other remunerations were paid during his employment with the Defendant.

3. AND FOR SUCH FURTHER ORDER(S) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

 Grounds upon which this application is brought

  1. Both parties have already joined issues on the Claimant’s entitlements/remuneration to wit: Claimant has contended that the Defendant owes him two months' salary and accumulated balance on monthly expenses from April 2019 to September 2020 while the Defendant denied owing the Claimant.
  2. That both the Claimant and Defendant then pleaded the Claimant's statement of account to prove their respective positions with the Defendant putting the Claimant's notice to produce his statement of account where his entitlements were paid at the relevant time.
  3. That the Claimant's Zenith Bank PLC’s statement of account was only pleaded in the Reply to the Defendant and same was inadvertently omitted from the documents tendered in evidence before this Court on 28th April 2025
  4. That in the course of reviewing this case file with the Claimant, it was discovered that it was only the Claimant's Zenith Bank Plc’s statement of account that was pleaded and same was inadvertently omitted from the documents.
  5. That apart from the Zenith Bank Plc’s statement of account, some parts of the Claimant's remunerations were also paid into his FCMB account and the same FCMB’s statement of account was not pleaded nor tendered in evidence.
  6. The tendering of this document is essential to enable this Honourable Court to fully determine the real questions in controversy between the parties and to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
  7. This application is made in the interest of substantive justice and will not occasion any prejudice to the Defendant/ Respondent, as parties have both joined issues on the subject.
  8. The Claimant/Applicant is willing to abide by any conditions this Honourable Court may impose, including allowing the Defendant/Respondent an opportunity to respond or cross-examine on the subject document if necessary.
  9. That the failure to include the said Statement of Account of the Claimant in the present claim before this Honourable Court was as a result of the counsel’s inadvertence.
  10. That this proposed amendment would not prejudice or overreach the Defendants nor Occasion any injustice to Defendant/Respondent in any way whatsoever.
  11. That by virtue of ORDERS 17 RULES 1, 26 RULES 1, 4 & 5, 38 RULES 29 AND 31 of the Rules of this Honourable Court 2017, this application is permissible.

 

The motion is supported by 9 paragraph affidavit deposed to by Kayode Adeyemi, a legal officer in the law firm of MESSERS: TRATTON NECTAR LEGAL, counsel to the claimant/applicant, attached with one exhibit. Accompanying the motion is a written address of counsel.

The Defendant/Respondent filed 8 paragraph counter affidavit deposed to by Adeolu Jacob Oluwatosin, counsel on record for the defendant, and accompanied by a written address. Claimant/Applicant filed a further and better affidavit in response to the defendant/Respondent’s counter affidavit on 27/2/2026, and a reply on points of law filed on the same date.

SUBMISSION OF CLAIMANT/APPLICANT’S COUNSEL

 

Applicant’s counsel raised a sole issue for determination to wit;

“Whether or not the Applicant has made out a case sufficient for the court to warrant the grant of the prayers being sought”. 

Learned counsel submitted that the Honourable Court is empowered by its Rules, and also has inherent powers to grant amendments of processes before it. Counsel referred the court to the case of GENERAL YAKUBU GOWON vs EDITH IKE OKONGWU & ORS (2003) 1 SC Pt. l11 P 57; (2003) 6 NWLR (Pt. 815) 1 at 48, Para. G, where the Court held that the power of the trial court to grant amendment of pleadings is almost limitless and would not be questioned unless it is shown that the trial court’s discretion was improperly exercised.

Counsel submitted that all Courts as a matter of fact, including this Honourable Court have vested in them, general and wide powers of amendment for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, or correcting any defect or error in proceedings before them. To this extent, they can at any stage of the proceedings before them on the application of any of the parties thereto, order any process in the proceedings to be amended as the justice of the case demands. Counsel referred the court to the case of ALAWIYE vs OGUNSANYA (2013) NWLR (Pt. 1348) 570 at 6224, Paras. A-B, when it held per Ogunbiyi JSC (as he then was):

 “The general principle of law is also trite that an amendment can be made at any time before judgment provided that the doing so will not overreach or prejudice the other party. It is also reasonable that an amendment which would determine the justice of a case one way or the other ought to be granted.”

Counsel further submitted that the aim of the above is to avert injustice, such that where an amendment would aid the cause of justice as between the parties as is necessary for the purpose of determining the real issue in dispute between them, the Court would have all necessary powers to grant same. Counsel cited the cases of: ADENIJI vs ADENIJI (SUPRA) at 119, Para. H; VICTOR ADEGOKE ADEWUNMI & ANOR v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF EKITI STATE & 6 ORS. (2002) 2 NWLR (Pt. 751) 474 at 479-480; (2002) 2 SCM 1. 

Counsel contended that it is fundamental to note that this duty of doing justice has no time limit and is innate in every court, even the appellate courts. Counsel relied on the case of ACHI vs EBENIGHE (2013) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1397) 380 at 419, Paras C-F,.

Counsel contended that the grant of such an application as the instant one for amendment calls for the exercise of the discretion any powers of the Honourable Court. Counsel referred the court to the case of CONCORD PRESS LTD vs OBIJO (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 162) 303 at 317 paras. B-C; it is trite law that such discretion must be exercised judicially and judic1ousIy.  

Counsel further contended that the instant application is brought pursuant to Order 17 RULES 1, Order 26 RULES 1, 4 & 5, ORDER 38 RULES 29 AND 31 of the NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT RULES 2017, particularly Order 26 Rule 1 (a-b) which provides as follows:

 (1) An amendment may be allowed where its purpose is to determine the real question or issue between parties and would

 a. secure substantial justice; or

 b. Settle the controversy between parties and related issues.

 It is the contention of counsel that the reason for the proposed amendments are set forth in paragraph 3 of the Affidavit in support of the Motion, and that the Claimant has in accordance with the provisions of ORDER 26 AND 38 RULES 17, 29 & 31 OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT RULES 2017, exhibited the proposed amendments. Counsel submitted that the amendment sought by the Claimant/Applicant herein is made for the second time in the circumstance of this case.

Learned counsel submitted that it is a trite law that where party desires to amend his pleadings to incorporate facts necessary for the proper determination of the real question raised in the suit, such a party is generally allowed to apply to the court for leave to amend his pleadings. Counsel cited the case of OKOLI vs AJOSE CITATION (1994) 8 NWLR (PT. 362) 300 @ 312, EGWA vs EGWA CITATION (2007) 1 NWLR (PT. 1014)71 @ 95, H), stated the rationale for amendment of pleading when it held that amendment is allowed to correct slips, blunders, error, Omissions and inadvertence, of counsel, in the interest of justice once the court is satisfied that no injustice would be occasioned to the adverse party. It was further stated that amendment may be allowed at any stage of the proceedings before, during, or after trial, or even after judgment or on appeal as the courts would rather grant an application for amendment than give judgment in ignorance of facts which ought to be known before rights are finally decided. 

Counsel contended that material facts have been supplied in the affidavit to enable the Honourable Court exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant and in line with the case of APOKU vs. ILOMBU (1998) 8 NWLR (PT 561) PG 283 PARA H. It was held thus:

 “In the exercise of the court’s discretion, it is now trite law that the court must act judicially and judiciously. It means that some materials must be pleaded before the court which will enable it decide whether the circumstance of the application justifies the exercise of the court’s equitable jurisdiction in the applicant’s favour”

It is the submission of counsel that the application is not brought mala fide or to overreach the Defendant by the Claimant. Rather, it is brought to aid Justice in this suit. Counsel cited the case of AKANIWO & ORS vs NSIRIM & ORS (2008) 9NWLR (PT 1093) 439, the Supreme Court defined Mala fide” thus:

“Mala fide, is the opposite of bona fide. It simply means bad faith as opposed to bona fide, which is good faith. Mala fide projects a sinister motive designed to mislead or deceive another. Mala fide is more than bad judgment or mere negligence. It is a conscious doing of a wrong arising from dishonest purpose or moral obliquity. Mala fide is not a mistake or error but a deliberate wrong emanating from ill-will.”

 

Counsel submitted further that it is clear that the conduct of the Claimant/ Applicant presenting this application cannot by any means be described as being brought mala fide or to over reach the Defendants by any stretch to warrant the refusal of this application. The fact that the Defendant may feel they may be under additional liability or that their case will collapse if amendment is granted is not a ground for refusal of an application for amendment. Counsel relied on the case of ITA vs DAZIE (2004) 4 NWLR (PT 652) 168 where the court held that:

“It must be emphasized that it is wrong to hold the view that amendment is fraudulent, intended to over reach or prejudicial or cause the other side an irreparable loss merely because, if the amendment is allowed, the other party’s case will collapse and this is of course will not be enough reason to refuse the amendment”

It is the submission of counsel that the present application does not fall within any of the highlighted instances in which an application for amendment may be refused, and that the essence of the application is to accommodate the Claimant to bring before the Honourable Court his Statement of account from Zenith Bank which parties have already joined issues on but was inadvertently omitted by the Claimant’s counsel during the cause of trial. 

Counsel submitted that this is a legitimate purpose for the grant of an amendment especially as the Claimant only seek to re-open his case and recall one of his witnesses. Counsel cited the case of KODE vs YUSUF (2001) 4 NWLR (PT. 703) 392.

Counsel went further to submit that given the substance of the amendment sought to be effected, it is in the interest of justice that same be allowed. The grant of the amendment will serve the critical object of the adversarial system of justice and the spirit of the Rules, that is to bring in facts and documents which would ensure that the real issues in controversy between parties are adequately brought into focus and determined; and also, to prevent any surprises being sprung on the Defendants if the issues are raised belatedly. Counsel therefore urged the court to grant the application as prayed as it will not occasion injustice but assist in guiding the court in dispensing justice in this case. 

SUBMISSIONS OF DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

Respondent’s counsel in response, submitted a sole issue for determination to wit; 

“Whether having regard to the facts of this case, this Honourable Court ought to grant the orders sought by the Applicant in his motion”

Counsel submitted that the grant or otherwise of an application for amendment by a court of justice is at the discretion of the court, and such  discretion should be exercised judicially and judiciously. Counsel referred the Court to the case of  OKAFOR vs IKEANYIN (1979) 12 NSCC 43 at 47-48 quoting from the decision of the same court in CHIEF OJAH & ORS. vs CHIEF EYO OGBONI & ORS (1967) 4 S.C. 69, BELLO JSC, (as he then was) held “An amendment of pleading for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between parties ought to be allowed unless such amendment will entail injustice or surprise or embarrassment to the other party or the applicant is acting mala fide or by his blunder the applicant has done injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise. In other words, the discretion ought to be exercised so as to do what justice and fair play may require in the particular case”

Counsel further submitted that the Applicant had concluded his case and under cross -examination, facts have been elucidated which had exposed the inadequacies of his case hence this amendment which if allowed would clearly over-reach the Defendant. The Applicant willfully refused to tender some of his documents but after cross examination now finds it desirable to tender the documents in order to re-do his case. Counsel urged the Court to refuse the amendment.

Learned counsel referred the court to Order 26 (2) which provides thus;

 “An amendment may be refused where it would –

  1. present a completely different case, or cause injustice to the other party or where the application for amendment is brought mala fide: 

(b) necessitate the hearing of further evidence especially on appeal:

(c) not cure the defect in the procedure sought to be cured or where it is inconsistent and useless

(d) amount to over-reaching the other party or an abuse of court process’ 

It is the submission of counsel that looking at the facts of this case, the Applicant had concluded his case and facts had been elucidated from him under cross examination where he had admitted that he had nothing before the Court to show that his monthly expenses were paid to him when he had not worked to earn same. Counsel contended that clearly, this proposed amendment is to correct the inadequacies of his case after cross-examination hence the amendment, if allowed, will overreach the case of the Defendant. Overreaching is one of the grounds upon which this Honourable Court must refuse an application for amendment. Hence, counsel urged the court to refused the Claimant/Applicant’s application. 

It is the contention of counsel in the counter affidavit that the proposed amendment is useless and inconsistent with the fact in issue. The clear purpose of the amendment is to establish that payments of monthly expenses were made to the Applicant by the defendant whereas the issue of dispute was whether the claimant earned the allowances and not so much about whether it had previously been paid to him or not.

Counsel contended that having not justified the reason for the bringing in of the document proposed to be brought in, counsel urged the Court to refuse the Applicant's application as being mala fide so as to enable the Defendant present its case. 

REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

Learned counsel in reply submitted that defendant's counsel argued that the Claimant’s amendment is brought mala fide and is overreaching the defendant. Counsel submitted that the defendant failed to show in their counter-affidavit any fact to suggest that this amendment has been brought mala-fide or that it will overreach her except that in paragraph 3.6 where it was alleged that the claimant previously admitted to the effect “He had nothing before the court to show that monthly expenses were paid to him when he had not worked to earn it. 

Counsel submitted that this piece of fact should be discountenanced as same was never as same part of the facts in the Defendant’s counter affidavit, and that addresses of cannot take the place of evidence which is what the Court acts on. Counsel referred the Court to the case of NITEL Ltd v. Okeke (2017) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1571) 439. 

Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence elicited from the Claimant witness during cross examination to that effect. Counsel contended that assuming without conceding that such fact was elicited   from the Claimant’s witness, such fact would have not ticked the bucket to hold that an amendment should be refused on the ground of overreaching and mala fide. This is because litigation is a contest by judicial process where the parties place on the table of justice their different positions clearly.

It is therefore the contention of counsel that rejecting an amendment to bring in a document with respect to the fact which parties had joined issues on the basis that the opponent had previously elicited fact that documents needed to prove such fact was not before the Court does not accord the spirit of litigation. Counsel relied on the case of Oladeji v. IGP & Anor (2018) LPELR-45141 CA. 

It is the submission of counsel that the Defendant is merely opposing the proposed amendment to ensure the truth on the accumulated balance on monthly expenses is not ascertained. Counsel maintained that the instance referred to in Order 26 Rule (2) of the Rules of this Court that term hearing of further evidence connotes after parties must have closed their case. Counsel cited the case of CCG (Nig.) Ltd & Anor v. Idorenyin (2015) LPELR-24685 (SC).

Learned counsel submitted further that paragraph 7 of the Defendant’s counter-affidavit as well as paragraph 3.4 of the Defendant’s written address in support of the counter-affidavit, the Defendant opposed the application of the Claimant to amend on the grounds that it seeks to redo the case of the Claimant. It is the submission of counsel that what the Claimant intends to do is to reopen his case and amend pleadings to accommodate document on which has been joined. Counsel relied on the case of Nebo v. FCDA (1998) 11 NWLR (pt. 574) 480.

Counsel submitted that the Court has the discretionary power to grant an application to reopen a case, and that the ground of the Defendant’s objection should be discountenanced.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In determining this application, and of course the issues and submissions raised by parties which I have carefully read through, the motion filed is for An order granting leave to the Claimant/Applicant to amend his reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter-claim, and an order granting leave to the Claimant/Applicant to reopen his case and recall his witness CW1 for sole purpose of tendering his Zenith Bank Plc’s statement of account and FCMB statement in all his salaries, incentives and other remunerations were paid during his employment with the Defendant.

The Claimant opened his case on 3rd February, 2025, and tendered documents in evidence which were admitted as Exhibits C1 to C18. Claimant’s case was then closed after the witness was cross-examined on the same date. The Claimant/Applicant then filed this application seeking  to amend his reply to the Statement of Defence of the Defendant’s, and Defence to Counter-claim.

The application is supported by a 9 paragraph affidavit and a written address of which the Defendant opposed by filing an 8 paragraph counter affidavit and a written address in support. The Claimant/Applicant filed a further and better affidavit in response to the defendant/Respondent ‘s counter affidavit.

The grant of amendment is governed by Order 26 of the NICN Rules which permits amendment at any stage of proceedings, provided they are necessary in determining the real question in controversy and not to prejudice the opposing party.

Order 26 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are reproduced hereunder:- 

1.1) An amendment may be allowed where its purpose is to determine the real question or issue between parties and would

 (a) secure substantial justice; or

 (b) settle the controversy between parties and related issues. 

(2) An amendment may be refused where it would

 (a) present a completely different case, or cause injustice to the other party or where the application for amendment is brought mala fide;

(b) necessitate the hearing of further evidence especially on appeal; 

(c) not cure the defects in the procedure sought to be cured or where it

 is inconsistent and useless;

 (d) amount to over-reaching the other party or an abuse of court process. 

2. A party may at any time but not more than twice with leave of Court

 Alter, amend or modify the party’s Originating and/or other processes. Provided that the party may not completely change the cause of action endorsed on the process.

3. The Court may at any time, and on such terms as to cost or otherwise as the Court or Judge may think just, allow a party to amend any defect or error in any process, and all necessary amendments shall be made for the purpose of determining the real questions or issues in controversy raised by or arising from the proceedings.

 4. An application for leave to amend may be made to the Court at the trial and such application shall be supported by an affidavit with the proposed amendment marked and attached as an exhibit and may be allowed upon such terms as to cost or otherwise as may be just.

 5. Where any Originating Process and/or a pleading is to be amended, a list of any additional witness(es) proposed or intended to be called together with such witness’s written statement on oath (and or a further written statement on oath of an existing witness) as well as a copy of any additional document to be relied upon, shall be filed with the application.

 

It is settled law that in civil cases, a party is entitled to amend his pleadings so as to enable the trial Court to decide the real issue or issues in controversy between the parties. See the case of Salami v. Oke (1987)-2982 (SC).

However, an amendment can be refused where it is made mala fide or if the proposed amendment will cause unnecessary delay or will in any way unfairly prejudice the opposite party, or quite irrelevant or useless. See Adekeye v. Akin-Olugbade (1987) LPELR-104 (SC).

The principle of law is well settled that the purpose for allowing amendment is to enable the parties conduct their cases properly by placing before the court all relevant facts necessary for the just determination of disputes between them. But any application which seeks to either overreach the other party or alter the nature of the applicant’s case will not be allowed. An amendment will hardly be refused if it will enhance the justice of the case except however, it appears in the opinion of the court that there is a fraudulent intention or a hidden agenda which will generally work injustice against the opponent. See the case of Compagnie Generale de Geophysique Nig. Ltd V. Jumbo (2015) LPELR-24685 (SC).

It was also held in Chief Aworokin v Adeniran (2010) LPELR-8595(CA) that the trial courts have very wide discretion in granting or refusing to grant leave to amend based on the established principle that the fundamental object of adjudication is to decide the rights of the parties and not to impose sanctions merely for mistakes made by the parties in the conduct of their cases. It was further held that however negligent or careless a slip may have been, however late the proposed amendment, it should be allowed so long as it can be done without injustice to the other side.

There is no doubt that this application calls for exercise of discretionary power of this court and like every other discretionary power it has to be exercised judicially and judiciously based on establish principles governing exercise of such discretion. Where an applicant seeks to be allowed to do an act which he omitted to do when he ought to have done it during trial he has a duty if he wants the court to exercise its discretion in his favour to place before the court sufficient materials, good enough facts giving reasons that are adequate and reasonable to explain his omission and/or failure to do the act at the appropriate time during the said trial. See NEBO V. FCDA & ANOR (1998) JELR 45680 (CA), Okwonkwo & Anor V Nwaoshai (2016) the rationale behind requiring an applicant to supply enough materials is to avoid opening of flood gate of endless trial, thereby making nonsense of litigation in our advertorial system of justice. In the case of ONWUKA VS ONWUKA (2001) 7 NWLR (PT.713) 695 AT 713, it was stated that where an application is made for recalling of witness, to grant or refuse the recall is discretionary and must be done judicially and judiciously.

It is settled law that the power to recall a witness or reopen a case is discretionary. See Order 38 Rules 29 & 31 of the NICN Rules 2017, which is hereby reproduced below:

Order 38 Rule 29; 

The Court may, where it deems it fit and expedient in the interest of justice grant leave to either claimant or defendant after the case has been closed and judgement reserved to file an application to reopen the case for the purpose of recalling a witness. 

Provided that such an application shall be for the purpose of clarifying the points initial already in evidence, and shall be made by motion on notice to the other party and filed within seven days of the adoption of the final addresses.

Rule 31- 

Upon being satisfied with the grounds of which the application is made, and where the court deems it fit in the interest of justice and fair trial to do so, the court shall grant leave to the party to reopen the case for purposes of clarifying the point of law and/or presenting the additional evidence as contained in the application to the court.

Provided that the respondent party shall have the right to reply within seven days as the case may be.”

It is clear that the above provisions of the rules of this court has adequately cloth this court with power to grant leave to reopen case and recall witness to testify. However, the power is required to be exercised cautiously. The discretion must be exercised judicially and judiciously, with circumspection where both parties have closed their cases, not to enable a party patch up weak points in its case; and the applicant must show exceptional circumstances and sufficient reasons to justify the reopening of a closed case.

In discretionary matters an indulgence can be granted when credible excuse is given. In Willoughby V. International Merchant Bank (Nigeria) (1987), the Supreme Court stated that it is obvious that a party applying to recall a witness must supply the trial judge with sufficient facts relating to why he wants the witness recalled and what he intends to put to the witness. It is on these facts that the trial judge will decide whether or not the justice of the case obliges him to exercise his discretion one way or the other.

It is important to note that the exercise of power to recall a witness is not at large. It is used to assist the Court in arriving at the truth of the matters. The materials to be supplied must relate to why he wants the witness recalled, and what he intends to put to the witness and it is on these facts that the trial Judge will decide whether or not the justice of the case obliges him to exercise his discretion.

In tendering the proposed amended reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Defence to Counter-claim which the Claimant/Applicant contends as Exhibit A, the Defendant contended that the Claimant/Applicant’s application is overreaching, mala fide, and urged the Court to refuse the application.

It can be gathered from the affidavit evidence that the reason why the Claimant wants to amend his Reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Defence to counter-claim, and reopen and recall witness CW1 is for the sole purpose of tendering his Zenith Bank Plc’s statement of account and  FCMB’s statement in all his salaries, incentives and other remunerations were paid during his employment with the Defendant. Claimant contended that the Defendant owes him two month’s salary and accumulated balance on monthly expenses from April 2019 to September 2020, while the Defendant denied owing the Claimant. Claimant contended that he pleaded Zenith Bank’s Plc Statement of Account in the Reply to the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, and same was inadvertently omitted from the list of documents tendered in evidence before the Court on 3rd February, 2025. I do not think that the reason is strong enough to warrant the grant of this application. This is because there must be new facts raised in the statement of defence. In the case at hand, I have studied the pleadings of the parties, and there are no new facts raised in the statement of defence. It is only where statement of defence raised new issues of facts not arising from the statement of claim, that the defendant has the duty to deal with the new issues of facts in his reply. The law is well settled that a reply is not necessary, if its purpose is to deny allegations in the statement of defence. See Obot v. CBN (1993) 9 SCNJ 268, Spasco v. Alraine (1995) 9 SCNJ 288, Ishola v. SB Bank (1997) 2 SCNJ 1, Philipo v. Eba Odan Commercial & Industrial Company Limited (2012) LPELR-9718 (SC).

In view of the foregoing, the Claimant/Applicant had concluded his case and facts had been elucidated from him under cross examination where he had admitted that he had nothing before the Court to show that his monthly expenses were paid to him when he had not worked to earn same. 

I am convinced that the Claimant/Applicant’s application is to correct the inadequacies of his case after cross examination. If this application is allowed, it will certainly overreach the Defendant. The clear purpose of this application is to establish that payments of monthly expenses were made to the Claimant/Applicant by the Defendant, whereas the issue in dispute was whether the Claimant earned the allowances, and not whether it was previously paid to him or not. In the circumstance the application to amend the Claimant/Applicant’s reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence and defence to counter claim, and to reopen a case and recall witness fails for lacking in merit and same is hereby dismissed. I make no order as to costs. Ruling is entered accordingly.

 

….……………………………

HON. JUSTICE S. A. YELWA

JUDGE

Appearances: -

 

I.F Erurwetothure  (Ms)          -           for the Claimant/Applicant 

 

O.J. Ade-Olu                -           for the Defendant/Respondent