CORAM
TASLIM O. ELIAS, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
OGUNDARE, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
SIR UDO UDOMA, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT
PARTIES
ASANI TAIWO KARIMU OGUNLANA KELANI SALAMI ADAMO SUNMOLA APPELLANTS
RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Plaintiffs claimed from the defendants the sum of £500 as damages for trespass to their land. They also asked for an injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents or servants from further trespassing on the said land. After judgement was entered in favour of the plaintiffs, the appellant appealed. Before arguing the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants applied to amend the amended statement of defence.
HELD
The Supreme Court refused the application for amendment
ISSUES
Whether the appellants could amend their amended statement of defence
RATIONES DECIDENDI
GRANT OF AMENDMENTS OF THE PLEADINGS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE CASE BEFORE JUDGMENT
“In the first place, unless there is very good and strong justification for so doing, a High Court should be reluctant to grant amendments of the pleadings after the close of the case before judgment, even though it has been indicated in the course of the hearing that some amendment might be asked for. Such an amendment may be allowed where the matter involved has been raised in the course of the trial and counsel has addressed the court on it, since it will be merely incorporating in the pleadings which has emerged in the course of the case as an issue between the parties. It may also be allowed where the subject of the amendment has been referred to by counsel in opening and evidence about it has been given so as to enable the court to arrive at the view, if it thinks fit, that what is pleaded is a correct interpretation of the facts..” Per FATAYI-WILLIAMS, JSC
CASES CITED
Loufti v. Czarnikow Ltd. (1952) 2 All E.R. p.823
STATUTES REFERRED TO