LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment Seeking to Bring Evidence in Line with Pleadings Not Automatic
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Where an amendment is intended to overreach; or it will entail injustice to the respondent or that the applicant is acting mala fide; or that by his blunder the applicant has done some injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise, this court has held that an amendment could be allowed at any time. Thus, where an amendment will allow the pleadings to be in line with the evidence and the finding made by the trial Judge, the same will be allowed. However, the court will be obliged to refuse an amendment intended to overreach or that will result in injustice to the other party, or where the applicant is acting mala fide.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, in Kode v. Yussuf (2001) NLC-2391993(SC) at pp. 16–17; Paras D–A.
"Where an amendment is intended to overreach; or it will entail injustice to the respondent or that the applicant is acting mala fide; or that by his blunder the applicant has done some injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise, this court has held that an amendment could be allowed at any time. Thus, where an amendment will allow the pleadings to be in line with the evidence and the finding made by the trial Judge, the same will be allowed. However, the court will be obliged to refuse an amendment intended to overreach or that will result in injustice to the other party, or where the applicant is acting mala fide."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Amendment to bring pleadings in line with evidence and trial findings is not automatic. The court must consider whether the amendment is intended to overreach, would cause injustice, or the applicant acts mala fide. Amendments that will align pleadings with evidence may be allowed, but not if they prejudice the other party or are brought in bad faith. The court balances the interest of justice against potential injustice to the respondent. Compensation by costs may cure some prejudice, but not all. The applicant’s motive is crucial. The principle prevents tactical amendments aimed at defeating an opponent’s case. Good faith and necessity are required. The court exercises discretion judicially.
