An order granting leave for extension of time to file, serve and use the Consequential Amended Claimant’s Complaint, Statement of Claim and all other affected documents, the time ordered by the Honourable Court having elapsed.

An order for leave to amend Claimant’s Complaint, the Statement of Claim and also add some paragraphs to the original Statement of Claim, add to List of Witnesses, list of documents to be relied on, etc together with the Consequential Amendment and for the amendments to also reflect in the Witness statement on Oaths, in the Statement of Claim/suit filed before this Court.

An order amending the Statement of Claim and adding some paragraphs to the original Claimant’s Complaint, Statement of Claim, to add to the List of Witnesses, List of Documents to be relied on, etc. together with the Consequential Amendment and for the amendments to also reflect in the Witness statement on Oaths, underlined as shown in the proposed amendment in the Statement of Claim/suit filed before this Court.

An order deeming the Claimant’s Complaint, Statement of Claim together with its Witness Statement on Oaths, List of Witnesses, List of Documents to be relied on in the Claimant’s case/suit before this Court marked as EXHIBIT “A” separately filed and served as properly filed, the appropriate fee having been duly paid.

2. And for such orders as this Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The motion was supported with an affidavit and a written address. The defendant opposed the motion by a counter affidavit and written address filed on 7th April 2025. The defendant subsequently filed a notice of preliminary objection on 18th December 2025. The claimant’s motion and the defendant’s NPO were heard together on 8th January 2026 and this ruling is the decision of the Court on both applications. I will consider and determine the NPO first.

NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

3. In the NPO, it was contended by the defendant that the motion filed by the Claimant on 28th February 2025 and the suit as presently constituted are incompetent and an abuse of court process. This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain both the motion and the suit. The particulars of the grounds of the NPO are as follows:

4. By the Claimant’s Complaint dated 24th December 2021 and filed on the 30th December 2021, the Claimant sued 3 Defendants. The principal and/or main claim in the Claimant’s suit as originally constituted was medical negligence and the employment related issue was ancillary issue being the pathway to the principal or main cause of action, that is, medical negligence. Based on the preliminary objection filed by National Hospital and Dr. Z.A. Isa, the Court delivered a ruling on the 3rd May 2023 and struck out National Hospital and Dr. Z.A. Isa from the suit.

5. From the 3rd May 2023, a consequent amendment of the Claimant’s Complaint crystallized because the ruling of the Court on the 3rd May 2023 had the toga of a declaratory judgment, which means that it takes immediate effect.The Claimant neglected and/or refused to make an amendment until the 28th February 2025 by which time, time had been wasted. That having struck out the names of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the Claimant realizing his culpable delay, clearly applied for an adjournment on the 14th January 2025 to make a consequential amendment.

6. That before the said application of 14th January 2025 was made, the Claimant as sole witness had testified and tendered and the matter was adjourned for cross examination. The said application was a subtle attempt to reconstruct the facts and create a semblance of a reasonable cause of action. It is trite law that one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand and that a court does not make an order in vain. That by Order 57 Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 the Claimant as at 28th February 2025 had accumulated default fee of N323,700 but paid only N30,000. The motion filed by the Claimant’s Counsel asking for an extension of time to make the said consequential amendment is incompetent.

7. In view of the ruling of the Honourable Court on the 3rd May 2023, the suit as it is presently constituted is no longer maintainable or sustainable because the Court that has the jurisdiction to try the principal or main cause of action also has the jurisdiction to try the ancillary one. What is left of the Claimant’s Complaint is an ancillary matter, which if allowed to go on would mean multiplicity of suits arising from one cause of action.

8. On the basis of the above grounds, the defendant sought these reliefs:

i. An order striking out the motion for consequential amendment filed by the Claimant for it was filed in contravention of Order 57 Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 and is therefore incompetent, a nullity.

ii. An order dismissing this suit for incompetence in that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain same, having been left with a peripheral aspect of the cause of action by the Ruling of 3rd May 2023.

iii. Any order or further orders as the Honourable Court may seem just to make in the circumstance.

9. The affidavit in support of the NPO was deposed by Sonia Adutu, litigation Clerk in the law firm of learned Counsel for the defendant. The deponent stated that the Claimant initially sued 3 defendants until the ruling of this court on 3rd May 2023 where the 2nd and 3rd defendants were struck out from the suit. The principal cause of action of the claimant, as originally constituted, was medical negligence while the employment related issue was ancillary. By the ruling of the Court on the 3rd May 2023, the suit as it is presently constituted is no longer maintainable or sustainable because what is left presently is a peripheral issue.

10. It was further deposed that the Claimant failed to make consequential amendment but opened his case as the sole witness. Then on 28th February 2025, a period of about two years, he filed a motion to amend, even though counsel for the Claimant sought for adjournment on 14th January 2025 to enable him effect the consequential amendment but no order for amendment was obtained. Having struck out the names of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, the oral application made by the Claimant’s counsel on the 14th January 2025 to effect the consequential amendment was superfluous and a subterfuge. From 3rd May 2023 to the 28th February 2025 is a period of 667 days. By Order 57 Rules 5, 6 and 7 of the NICN Rules, 2017 the Claimant has accumulated a default fee of N323,700 but he paid only N30,000. The claimant has a balance of N293,700 default fees unpaid to the Court’s Registry. The motion filed by the Claimant for extension of time to make a consequential amendment is therefore incompetent.

11. In the written address in support of the NPO, learned counsel for the defendant submitted 2 issues for determination in the NPO, which are:

i. Whether the Court has the jurisdiction to try the ancillary issue having regard to the Ruling of this Honourable Court on 3rd May 2023 striking out the principal issue?

ii. Whether the Claimant’s motion on Notice dated 28th February 2025 seeking for an extension of time to make a consequential amendment is competent?

12. On issue 1, it was submitted that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to try this matter as presently constituted in view of the ruling of 3rd May 2023, in which the Court declined the jurisdiction to try the main issue, which was medical negligence. It was argued that what is left in the suit is about workplace accident which is merely an ancillary. Since the law is that it is the Plaintiff’s claim that determines the jurisdiction of the court, a careful perusal of the claimant’s claim will show that there are features in the instant case that preclude this Court from exercising its jurisdiction. Thus, the question is whether this Court can then try the residual subject of workplace accident. Counsel relied on TUKUR v. GOVT. OF GONGOLA STATE [1989] 4 NWLR [PT.117] 517 where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for court to have jurisdiction to determine all the claims before it and that a court cannot adjudicate over ancillary claims if it has no jurisdiction to entertain the main claim. Counsel surmised that the court that has the jurisdiction to try all the issues in this case is the FCT High Court and not the NICN.

13. Counsel also relied on IBRAHIM v. NIGERIAN ARMY [2025] 11 ALL NWLR [PT.1999] 279 where it was held that a court imbued with jurisdiction over a subject matter is clothed with jurisdiction to consider an ancillary question or issue that arises in the course of exercising its jurisdiction and will not cease to be so endowed even if the ancillary question falls within the scope of jurisdiction of another court. It was concluded by counsel that since this court has held that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the principal issue in the suit, it also lacked jurisdiction to delve into the ancillary issue in the matter. The court was urged to strike out this suit.

14. On issue 2, it was submitted that the Claimant’s motion on Notice dated 28th February 2025 is incompetent in that the requisite default fees has not been paid. It was argued that the implication of the ruling of 3rd May 2023 is that this Court said the claimant should amend his processes by removing the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The removal of the names of these defendants from the suit necessitated a consequential amendment of the process and this does not require any order for it to be complied with immediately. Counsel referred to Order 57, Rules 5 and 6 of the NICN Rules 2017 to submit that the Claimant has filed a Motion for extension of time to comply with the order of 3rd May 2023 but failed to pay the requisite default fee. This failure renders his application incompetent.

15. It was submitted that the default fee accumulated by the Claimant is the sum of N323,700 but he paid only N30,000. Counsel submitted further that these provisions of the NICN Rules 2017 are mandatory and must be obeyed. Counsel also cited the provisions of Rule 7 of Order 57 NICN Rules to submit that the claimant’s failure to comply with the order contained in the Ruling of 3rd May 2023 is due to the neglect or failure of the Claimant’s counsel. Counsel urged this court to order that the default fee be paid personally by counsel for the claimant.

16. The NPO was served on counsel for the claimant on 18th December 2025 but no process was filed by the claimant to oppose the NPO. On 8th January 2026 when the claimant’s motion and the defendant’s NPO was heard, neither the claimant nor his counsel was in court. The Court invoked the provision of Order 38 Rule 3 of the NICN Rules 2017 to deem the claimant’s motion as duly adopted while the counsel for the defendant was given leave to argue the NPO.

DECISION ON THE NPO

17. From the grounds of the NPO, the contents of the affidavit in support and the submissions made by counsel for the defendant in the written address, it is observed that the defendant raised two grounds in its NPO.

18 The grounds are that:

This Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the claimant against the defendant, and

The motion for amendment filed by the claimant on 28th February 2025 is not competent.

19. With regard to the first ground of the NPO, it is a fact that the claimant instituted this suit against 3 defendants. His employer was the 1st defendant while the National Hospital Abuja and one Dr. Z.A. Isa were the 2nd and 3rd defendants. In the ruling of this court on 3rd May 2023 delivered in an application brought by the 2nd and 3rd defendants, these defendants were struck out from the suit for the reason that the claims of the claimant against the 2nd and 3rd defendants are not within the subject matter jurisdiction of this court. The court did observe that the subject matter of the claimant’s case against the 2nd and 3rd defendants, including reliefs a, c and d sought against them, bordered on the subject of negligence in the medical services rendered for the claimant and not an employment or labour matter or any matter arising from the subject matters in section 254C[1] of the 1999 Constitution. The consequence of the striking out of the 2nd and 3rd defendants from the suit is that reliefs a, c, and d sought against them went with them. That left only relief b sought against the 1st defendant.

20. I also recall I specifically held in my ruling of 3rd May 2023 thus: While this court can entertain the suit of the claimant against the 1st defendant, his claims against the 2nd and 3rd defendants are not within the jurisdiction of this court.

21. The above statement is a declaration by this court that it has jurisdiction to entertain the aspect of the claimant’s suit against the 1st defendant. The defendant did not appeal this holding neither is there any decision of a superior Court that has overturned that declaration. Accordingly, the declaration is subsisting and valid. The instant application of the defendant is seeking to make this court sit on appeal over what it has earlier decided and affirmed.

22. In addition, contrary to the belief of the defendant, the claimant’s case against the defendant is not ancillary to his case against the parties who were struck out. The statement of facts of the claimant reveals his cause of action against the defendant, upon which he sought relief b, is workplace negligence, that is the defendant’s breach of its duty of care to the claimant, which resulted in the injury to the claimant’s eye. This is a principal claim different from his claims of medical negligence against the parties who were struck out. The aspect of the case of the claimant remaining against the defendant is exclusively within the subject matter jurisdiction of this Court. It implies that it is only this court, and no other court that can entertain the claim. Without further ado, I do not find any merit in the first ground of the NPO. This ground of the NPO is dismissed.

23. The 2nd ground of the NPO is to challenge the competence of the claimant’s motion filed on 28th February 2025 by the claimant wherein he sought for extension of time and leave to amend the statement of facts. The objection of the defendant is that the claimant who sought extension of time failed to pay the appropriate and correct default fees. I have seen that the defendant also raised this issue of payment of default fee in its processes filed to oppose the claimant’s motion. In my view, it will be more appropriate to consider the issue of payment or incomplete payment of default fee when determining the motion. Accordingly, the second ground of the NPO challenging the competence of the motion is struck out.

THE CLAIMANT’S MOTION

24. The reliefs sought in the motion have earlier been set out in this ruling but the grounds of the motion are as follows:

The amendment sought is necessary for the Claimant to see that same is affected before this Court without which the matter cannot be properly and justly determined.

The amendment sought by the Claimant is necessitated by the mistake of his Counsel in the matter.

25. It will be in the interest of fair hearing for this application to be granted. This Court has the powers to grant this application. In the affidavit in support of the motion, deposed by Rosemary Okon, a litigation secretary in the law firm of counsel for the claimant, it was stated that when the claimant filed his Statement of Facts on 30th December 2021, some important facts were missed but unknown to him. It was when he related those facts to his counsel that his counsel told him that those facts were important to his case. The claimant then realized he didn’t relate those facts in the statement of facts and witness statement on oath before they were filed in court. The claimant has now told his counsel the missed facts and his counsel needs to add them in his Statement of Facts and witness statement on oath. Without the facts being added, this suit cannot be properly and justly determined.

26. In the written address in support of the motion, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the court may at any stage of proceeding allow the Claimant to amend his Statement of facts and pleadings. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has given cogent and compelling reason in his affidavit to warrant this Court to grant the application, particularly the fact that Courts have held that mistakes of counsel should not be visited on the litigants. Counsel cited the cases of OGBORU v. IBORI (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 911) 1 and ETIM v. ARIK AIR LTD (2014) 6 NWLR (Pt.1401) 1. It was submitted further that the conditions for the grant of amendment of pleadings are present in this application, especially the condition that the amendment will enable the Court to determine the suit effectively, ensure the proper determination of this matter and put an end to litigation. Counsel cited the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEE OF CHURCH OF THE LORD (ALADURA) v. JACOB KANAH SHERIFF (2000) LPELR 6935 (CA) to submit that this Court has the power to grant the application.

27. The counter affidavit of the defendant in opposition to the motion was deposed by Sonia Adutu, a Litigation Clerk in the law firm of counsel for the defendant. It was averred in the counter affidavit that by the effect of the Ruling of this Court on 3rd May 2023, the Claimant’s case became unsustainable hence he brought this application in an attempt to reconstruct the facts in order to give a semblance of a cause of action. A consequential amendment does not go beyond the removal of the names of parties struck out from the suit, but instead of a consequential amendment, the claimant has embarked on reconstruction and recreation of the processes by the introduction of new paragraphs and new documents. The Claimant, as the sole witness, has adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered all the documents frontloaded on record and what is left is his cross examination. The claimant now seeks to amend his Complaint, statement of facts, witness statement on oath and to introduce further documents which will change the nature and character of this suit. The amendment will be prejudicial to the defendant if granted because it will create a different cause of action and a new suit as well as change the nature of the suit.

28. In the written address in support of the counter affidavit, a sole issue was submitted for determination, to wit: Whether the Court can grant an order for an amendment as prayed in the instant case? In arguing the issue, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the motion is incompetent because the claimant has not complied with Order 57 Rules (4) and (6) of the NICN Rules 2017 for the payment of default fees.

29. It was further submitted that the amendment sought by the claimant is not grantable because the claimant seeks to create a new suit and the amendment will result in a complete change of this suit into one of substantially different character. The only consequential amendment that can be made arising from the ruling of the Court striking out the names of some defendants from all the processes in this suit, is the removal of their names from the processes only. But what the applicant filed is outside the contemplation of a consequential amendment. The amendment sought by the claimant cannot be described as consequential amendment.

30. Counsel further argued that the conditions to be considered before a court can grant an application for leave to amend originating process were absent in this case. The amendment sought if granted will be an inconsistent or useless amendment, will create a suit where none existed, change the nature of the claims before the court, will not cure any perceived defects in the proceedings and it would enthrone injustice. Granting this application to amend will occasion miscarriage of justice in and hinder the Court from deciding the real issue in question. It was submitted further that this application was brought after the Claimant had adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered all the documents that were pleaded. The alleged mistake of counsel was an intentional blunder and fraudulent. The claimant has also acted malafide by his presentation of this case.

DECISION ON THE MOTION

31. The first relief sought by the claimant in the motion is an order extending time for the claimant to file and serve the consequential amended Complaint, Statement of Facts and all other accompanying processes as the time ordered by the Court has elapsed. It is on account of this prayer that the defendant contended that the claimant’s motion is not competent because, having failed to file the consequential amendment within the time limit, the claimant is out of time by 667 days and ought to pay default fee of N323,700 which he failed to pay but paid only N30,000 leaving a balance of N293,700.

32. Upon the Ruling of this Court on 3rd May 2023 striking out the 2nd and 3rd defendants from the suit, the court did not make an order for consequential amendment of the processes. This may have been in view of Order 13, Rule 16 of the Rules of this Court which require consequential amendment of the processes only in situations where a Defendant is added or substituted. It thus implies that the claimant is not mandated by the Rules to amend his originating processes on account of the striking out of some defendants from the suit. However, on 14th January 2025, this court directed the claimant to file amended Complaint and accompanying processes to reflect the subsisting parties arising from the Ruling of 3rd May 2023. The claimant was given 14 days to do so. The claimant did not file the amended Complaint or amended statement of facts within the period limited for him by the court. Instead, he filed the instant motion on 28th February 2025.

33. The order to the claimant to amend his processes was made on 14th January 2025. The 14 days within which to do so lapsed on 28th January 2025. When the claimant filed this motion on 28th February 2025, he was out of time by 30 days. I have seen the assessment of default fee made on the motion by the registry of this Court. It is indicated that the claimant was out of time by 30 days and the default fee was assessed at N5,200. This sum was paid by the claimant.

34. The duty on the claimant to amend his originating processes arose on 14th January 2025 and not on 3rd May 2023. Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the claimant was not in default to the number of days stated by the defendant. The claimant was out of time for only 30 days and he duly paid the correct default fees. In view of the foregoing, the defendant’s assertion that the claimant’s motion is not competent by reason of failure to pay appropriate default fees lacks merit.

35. The extent to which the court ordered the claimant to amend his originating processes on 14th January 2025 was with respect to the parties in the suit. He was to amend to indicate the parties in the suit after two defendants were struck out. Thus, the order for extension of time sought by him in prayer 1 of the motion is with respect to that amendment as ordered. Since the claimant is out of time to comply with that order, it is appropriate to extend time for him to file the amended processes.

36. In addition to amending the parties, the claimant is also seeking to make amendments to the Complaint, statement of facts, list of documents, list of witnesses and witness statement on oath. See prayers 2 and 3 of the motion. The proposed amended processes were attached to the affidavit as Exhibit A. I have seen the additions the claimant seeks to make to the originating processes. The claimant underlined the proposed claims and facts he intends to introduce into the suit by the amendment. I have also seen the reasons given in the affidavit in support of the motion necessitating the amendments. It is settled law that courts have the inherent powers to allow amendments to originating processes and pleadings of the parties at any stage of the proceedings.

37. In Order 26 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Rules of this Court 2017, the court is given the discretion to allow a party to amend the originating processes or pleadings filed in a suit. Also, the Rules permit this court to allow amendment at any time in the proceeding. This inherent power of this court to allow amendment to originating processes and pleadings of the parties is for the purpose set out in Rule 1 of Order 26 which is to determine the real question or issue between parties and to secure substantial justice or settle the controversy between parties and related issues. Thus, by the Rules of this court, the exercise of the power to allow amendment is to be exercised in favour of doing justice in each particular case.

38. See also BANK OF BARODA v. IYALABANI COMPANY LTD (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 494 at 527; NIGERIAN DYNAMIC LTD v. DUMBAI (2002) FWLR (Pt. 105) 823 at 831. The rules have also set out some conditions under which the court may refuse an application for amendment. In Order 26 Rule 2, an amendment may be refused where it would present a completely different case, or cause injustice to the other party or where the application for amendment is brought mala fide; or where the amendment will necessitate the hearing of further evidence; or where the amendment will not cure the defects in the procedure sought to be cured or where it is inconsistent and useless; or where the amendment will amount to over-reaching the other party or amount to an abuse of court process.

39. The reasons given in the counter affidavit of the defendant for opposing the amendment the claimant seeks to make are that the amendment will create a different cause of action and a new suit as well as change the nature and character of the suit and that the amendment will be prejudicial to the defendant. I have considered these reasons in line with the proposed amendment sought to be made by the claimant. I observe that the proposed introductions to the originating processes are related and connected to the case of the claimant against the defendant in the extant originating processes. The original cause of action has not been discarded. The claimant merely sought additional claims and pleaded additional facts but all still relating to his cause of action against the defendant. In my view, the amendments sought to be made by the claimant will not change his cause of action nor the nature and character of the suit.

40. It was also stated in the defendant’s counter affidavit that the claimant, as the sole witness in his case, has testified partly but is yet to be cross examined. The claimant testified in chief halfway on 25th April 2024. He adopted his witness statement and tendered some documents in evidence but is yet to conclude his evidence in chief. It means that the claimant has not closed his case nor has the defendant opened its defence as at the time the claimant brought this application to amend. I do not see how the defendant will be overreached or prejudiced by the amendment. The defendant will have the opportunity to amend their statement of defence, if necessary, to respond to the new facts or defend the new claims of the claimant in the proposed amendment and to cross examine the claimant on the new facts.

41. I am satisfied that the amendment sought to be made in the originating processes by the claimant is to enable the claimant put before this court the whole facts of his case. To allow the amendment will enable the court be seized of the whole facts of the case so that the real issues in dispute can be conclusively determined at once. In my view, the dictates of justice and fair hearing require that I exercise my discretion to allow the amendment. The claimant’s prayer for leave to amend the originating process and the accompanying processes is granted except for the witness statement on oath. The claimant has already adopted his witness statement on oath which accompanied the Complaint and it is now evidence on record. He cannot now seek to amend the said witness statement on oath already adopted. The proper step for the claimant is to file a further witness statement on oath, if he so desires, and not to amend the one already adopted.

In the final result, it is ordered as follows:

42. Time is extended for the claimant to amend the Complaint and other accompanying processes in terms of the order of this Court made on 14th January 2025.

43. Leave is granted to the claimant to amend the Complaint, statement of facts, list of witnesses and list of documents in the manner reflected in the exhibited proposed amended processes.

44. The amended Complaint, amended statement of facts, amended list of witnesses and amended list of documents already filed by the claimant on 28th February 2025 are deemed as properly filed and served.

45. Parties shall bear their costs.

46. Ruling is entered accordingly.