LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment Designed to Overreach
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
I am inclined to the view held fast by learned counsel for the respondent that the amendment the application sought, was one that was designed against ground 4 of the grounds of appeal of the appellant at the lower court. The lower court indeed so found in their judgment and the appellant herein conceded after much disputation, at page 13 of their brief as follows: 'Funny enough learned counsel waited until he has read the above ground of appeal and prepared the respondents' brief of argument before he deemed it desirable to seek the amendment. The reason he is seeking the amendment becomes obviously not farfetched for anyone can reasonably infer that it is for the purpose of knocking off the legs of the table.'
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Kode v. Yussuf (2001) NLC-2391993(SC) at p. 18; Paras A–C.
"I am inclined to the view held fast by learned counsel for the respondent that the amendment the application sought, was one that was designed against ground 4 of the grounds of appeal of the appellant at the lower court. The lower court indeed so found in their judgment and the appellant herein conceded after much disputation, at page 13 of their brief as follows: 'Funny enough learned counsel waited until he has read the above ground of appeal and prepared the respondents' brief of argument before he deemed it desirable to seek the amendment. The reason he is seeking the amendment becomes obviously not farfetched for anyone can reasonably infer that it is for the purpose of knocking off the legs of the table.'"
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An amendment designed to overreach—to defeat a specific ground of appeal or to “knock off the legs of the table”—will be refused. The timing of the application is significant; if sought after reading the opponent’s brief, an improper motive may be inferred. The court will not sanction tactical amendments aimed at avoiding an adverse decision. The principle prevents abuse of process. A party cannot wait until after judgment and appeal to change their case. The amendment must be sought bona fide, not to overreach. The court examines the timing, purpose, and effect of the proposed amendment. If designed to defeat an opponent’s ground of appeal, it is an abuse. Good faith and necessity are required.
