LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Amendment of Pleadings – Refusal of Amendment Where Injustice Caused
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Application for amendment is generally refused if granting it will result in injustice to the other side; it will surely be refused if made mala fide; there is no evidence that this application was made mala fide; on the contrary, the supporting affidavit has deposed to the fact that unless the amendment was made, and the judgment of the trial court varied accordingly to correct the error and omission in expressing the manifest intention of the court in the event of the appeal being allowed, injustice will result to the appellant.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"Application for amendment is generally refused if granting it will result in injustice to the other side — See Adetutu v. Aderohumnu (1984) 6 SC 92; (1984) 1 SCNLR 515. It will surely be refused if made malafide. There is no evidence that this application was made mala fide. On the contrary, the supporting affidavit has deposed to the fact that unless the amendment was made, and the judgment of the trial court varied accordingly to correct the error and omission in expressing the manifest intention of the court in the event of the appeal being allowed, injustice will result to the 2nd appellant."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This balances liberal amendment policy with protection against abuse. Refusal grounds: (1) Injustice to opponent: Granting causes injustice to other side—unfair prejudice, irremediable harm; (2) Mala fides: Made in bad faith—tactical abuse, deception, or improper motive. Assessment: Courts examine: evidence of mala fides (bad faith indicators), effect on opponent (will they be prejudiced?), and effect of refusal (will applicant suffer injustice?). Balance: Liberal policy (favor amendments) versus protection (prevent injustice/abuse). Courts weigh: injustice from granting (to opponent) against injustice from refusing (to applicant). Here: no mala fides shown, refusing would cause injustice to applicant (error uncorrected), and granting wouldn’t harm opponent. Therefore: grant. “Surely be refused if mala fide” means: bad faith is absolute bar—no amendment if improper motive. Competing injustices: Sometimes refusing causes injustice (defeating meritorious case) and granting causes injustice (prejudicing opponent). Courts must: assess relative injustices, determine which is greater/less remediable, and choose course minimizing total injustice. “Manifest intention of court” means: court clearly intended certain outcome, error/omission prevented proper expression, and amendment corrects to match actual intention. This serves: balancing competing interests, protecting against abuse while facilitating justice, and preventing injustice to either party. The principle: amendments refused only when causing injustice or made in bad faith—otherwise liberal policy prevails.