LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment Requiring New Trial
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
It is thus quite clear that if the writ and the statement of claim are amended as prayed, the court will not be in a position to amend or change witnesses' testimonies. I agree with Mr. Ogbebor that the amendment if granted will certainly require the adducing of additional evidence if not a new trial. That will be intolerable.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Onu, JSC, quoting Kutigi, JSC in Jessica Trading Company Ltd. v. Bendel Ins. Co. Ltd. (1993), in Kode v. Yussuf (2001) NLC-2391993(SC) at p. 23; Paras A–B.
"It is thus quite clear that if the writ and the statement of claim are amended as prayed, the court will not be in a position to amend or change witnesses' testimonies. I agree with Mr. Ogbebor that the amendment if granted will certainly require the adducing of additional evidence if not a new trial. That will be intolerable."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
An amendment that would require adducing additional evidence or a new trial will be refused as “intolerable.” The court cannot amend witnesses’ testimonies to match amended pleadings. If the amendment fundamentally changes the case, a new trial would be necessary, causing injustice and delay. The principle prevents parties from substantially altering their case after trial. The court considers whether the amendment can be accommodated without re-opening the trial. If new evidence would be needed, the amendment is refused. The opposing party would be prejudiced by having to meet a new case after judgment. The amendment must be capable of being absorbed within the existing evidentiary framework. Fundamental changes are not permitted.
