LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Amendment of Pleadings — Amendment After Trial — When Permissible
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Unless there is very good and strong justification for so doing, a High Court should be reluctant to grant amendments before judgment, even though it has been indicated in the course of the hearing that some amendment might be asked for. Such an amendment may be allowed where the matter involved has been raised in the course of the trial and Counsel has addressed the Court on it since it will be merely incorporating in the pleadings that which has emerged in the course of the case as an issue between the parties.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC Iweka v. S.C.O.A. (Nigeria) Limited (2000) NLC-2311992(SC) at p. 11; Paras. A–C.
"Unless there is very good and strong justification for so doing, a High Court should be reluctant to grant amendments before judgment, even though it has been indicated in the course of the hearing that some amendment might be asked for. Such an amendment may be allowed where the matter involved has been raised in the course of the trial and Counsel has addressed the Court on it since it will be merely incorporating in the pleadings that which has emerged in the course of the case as an issue between the parties."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Amendments after trial but before judgment are permissible only with strong justification. Courts are generally reluctant to grant such amendments as they may prejudice the opposing party or delay judgment. However, amendment may be allowed where the matter was actually raised in evidence and addressed by counsel during trial—essentially formalizing what already emerged as a live issue. This avoids injustice where the pleadings merely failed to reflect issues fully canvassed. The overriding consideration is whether the amendment serves the ends of justice without causing irremediable prejudice.