CORAM

---

HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. A. HAMZA

---

PARTIES

---

OBASI IFEANYI OKOLIE

APPELLANTS 

---

1. ILS FLEET MANAGEMENT SERVICES LIMITED

2. TAK LOGISTICS LIMITED

RESPONDENTS 

---

AREA(S) OF LAW

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS, FAIR HEARING, ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS, SUBSTITUTION OF WITNESS, JUDICIAL DISCRETION, EMPLOYMENT LAW

 

---

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The Claimant/Respondent, Obasi Ifeanyi Okolie, commenced an action before the National Industrial Court, Port Harcourt Judicial Division, claiming against the Defendants/Applicants — ILS Fleet Management Services Limited and TAK Logistics Limited — jointly and severally, for declaratory and monetary reliefs arising from the alleged unlawful termination of his employment. His claims included declarations of unfair termination, orders for payment of redundancy/terminal benefits of ₦4,800,000.00, unremitted tax deductions of ₦1,271,184.00, unremitted pension deductions of ₦979,200.00, two months’ salary in lieu of notice totaling ₦840,921.22, special damages of ₦194,000.00 for vehicle repair costs, general damages of ₦20,000,000.00 for wrongful termination and the hardship occasioned thereby, and litigation costs of ₦2,000,000.00. The Claimant alleged that his employment was terminated without following the procedure laid down in the employees’ handbook and attributed his termination to a conspiracy by the management of the Defendants to push him out in furtherance of an illegal act.

The Defendants had, through their previous Counsel, filed an initial Joint Statement of Defence on 24th August 2023. Subsequently, the Defendants changed their Counsel and duly notified the Court and the Claimant. Upon being engaged in June 2025, the new Counsel reviewed the Certified True Copies of the court records and, following consultations with the Defendants, discovered that several material facts and documentary evidence critical to the defence had been omitted from the original Statement of Defence. The omitted matters included evidence of payment of the Claimant’s terminal benefits and salary in lieu of notice; evidence of remittance of the tax and pension deductions; the absence of any contractual basis for the two-year redundancy benefit claimed; and the fact that the Claimant had not executed the Employee Handbook which he relied upon. The Defendants accordingly filed a Motion on Notice dated 14th November 2025, seeking leave to amend their Joint Statement of Defence and all accompanying processes, to substitute their witness, and to amend the witness statement on oath and the list of documents to be relied upon.

The Claimant/Respondent opposed the application vigorously, contending that: the amendment would overreach his case given that the Defendants’ sole witness (DW1) had already testified and was partly cross-examined; the reasons given for the amendment were not cogent or substantial; the Defendants were merely seeking to patch up a damaged case; and the proposed substitution of a witness who had already given evidence and undergone partial cross-examination was legally impermissible and constituted an abuse of court process. The Claimant urged the Court to dismiss the application with substantial costs.

In their Reply on Points of Law, the Defendants’ Counsel maintained that an amendment may be granted at any stage of proceedings in the interest of justice, that the Claimant had not identified any specific act of overreaching, and that the proposed amendment was aimed at placing before the Court all facts necessary for a comprehensive and just determination of the matter.

The Court, having carefully considered the processes, written addresses, and reply on points of law from both sides, resolved the sole issue in favour of the Defendants/Applicants and granted the leave sought.

 

---

HELD

---

1. The Court held that the law on amendment of pleadings is firmly settled and that an application for amendment is addressed to the discretion of the Court, which must be exercised judicially and judiciously having regard to the interest of justice; the primary consideration being whether the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real issues in controversy and for doing substantial justice.

2. The Court held that the Defendants/Applicants had demonstrated that the proposed amendment was aimed at placing all relevant facts before the Court rather than altering the fundamental nature of the defence, and that the amendment was therefore in order.

3. On the issue of overreaching, the Court held that mere lateness in seeking an amendment, without proof of mala fides or irremediable prejudice, does not amount to overreaching, and that the Claimant had failed to demonstrate any specific act of cunning or unfairness on the part of the Defendants.

4. On the substitution of a witness, the Court held that substitution of parties is distinct from substitution of witnesses, and that a party is free to call any witness necessary to prove its case; where a witness statement on oath is amended or replaced with leave of Court, the right of the opposing party to further cross-examination adequately cures any perceived prejudice.

5. The Court held that the application did not constitute an abuse of court process, as an application brought pursuant to the Rules of Court seeking leave to amend pleadings in order to present a fuller defence cannot without more be branded an abuse.

6. Leave was accordingly granted; the Defendants/Applicants were directed to file and serve the amended processes within 7 days; the Claimant/Respondent was afforded 7 days to file consequential processes and was at liberty to further cross-examine the Defendants’ witness(es) on the amended processes.

 

---

ISSUES

---

Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court ought to grant leave to the Defendants/Applicants to amend their Joint Statement of Defence, substitute their witness, and amend the accompanying processes?

 

---

RATIONES DECIDENDI

---

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS — PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE REAL ISSUES AND DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE

---

“It is imperative to state that the law on amendment of pleadings is firmly settled. An application for amendment is addressed to the discretion of the Court, which discretion must be exercised Judicially and Judiciously, having regard to the interest of Justice. Thus, the primary consideration is whether the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real issues in controversy between the parties and for doing substantial justice.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS — COURT’S POWER TO ALLOW AMENDMENT AT ANY STAGE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AMENDMENT WILL BE REFUSED

---

“By Order 26 Rules 1 and 2 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, this Court is expressly empowered to allow amendment of Pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy and does not occasion injustice to the adverse party. The Appellate Courts have consistently held that amendments should be freely granted, unless it is shown that; The amendment will introduce a completely new or inconsistent case, It’s brought mala fide, It will overreach or prejudice the other party in a manner that cannot be compensated by costs, or It constitutes an abuse of court process.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

AMENDMENT AFTER WITNESS HAS TESTIFIED — COMMENCEMENT OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY BAR AMENDMENT WHERE STRONG JUSTIFICATION EXISTS

---

“On the issue that evidence has already commenced, the law is clear that the mere fact that a witness has testified or has been partly cross-examined does not, without more, bar an amendment. What the Court must consider is whether there is strong justification and whether the amendment is necessary to resolve the real controversy.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

AMENDMENT — WHERE AMENDMENT IS AIMED AT PLACING ALL RELEVANT FACTS BEFORE COURT RATHER THAN ALTERING FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF DEFENCE IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED

---

“the Defendants/Applicants have deposed that upon change of Counsel and a review of the Court records, certain material facts and documents relating to alleged payment of terminal benefits, remittance of tax and pension deductions, the redundancy claim, and the Status of the Employee Handbook were omitted in the original Statement of Defence. These are matters that go to the root of the Claimant’s claims. I am satisfied that the proposed amendment is aimed at placing all relevant facts before the Court, rather than altering the fundamental nature of the defence.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

OVERREACHING — MERE LATENESS IN SEEKING AMENDMENT WITHOUT PROOF OF MALA FIDES OR IRREMEDIABLE PREJUDICE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OVERREACHING

---

“The Claimant/Respondent has not demonstrated any specific act of cunning or unfairness on the part of the Defendants/Applicants beyond the fact that the amendment is sought at a later stage of proceedings. Mere lateness, without proof of mala fides or irremediable prejudice, does not amount to overreaching.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

SUBSTITUTION OF WITNESS — DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES AND SUBSTITUTION OF WITNESSES AND THE REMEDY OF FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION TO CURE PREJUDICE

---

“substitution of parties is different from substitution of witnesses. A party is generally free to call any witness necessary to prove its case, subject to the rules of fair hearing and the right of the adverse party to cross-examine. Where a witness statement on oath is amended or replaced with leave of Court, the opposing party is entitled to further cross-examination. This adequately cures any perceived prejudice. The Claimant/Respondent has not shown that in the event of any injury which may arise as a result, cannot be compensated by costs or by affording him the opportunity of further cross-examination.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

ABUSE OF COURT PROCESS — AN APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF COURT TO PRESENT A FULLER DEFENCE DOES NOT WITHOUT MORE CONSTITUTE AN ABUSE

---

“I do not find merit in the allegation that the application amounts to an abuse of court process. Abuse of process involves the improper use of Judicial process in a manner aimed at irritation, oppression, or multiplicity of proceedings. An application brought pursuant to the Rules of Court, seeking leave to amend pleadings in order to present a fuller defence, cannot, without more, be branded an abuse.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

LITIGANT NOT TO SUFFER FOR COUNSEL’S MISTAKE — OMISSIONS IN ORIGINAL PLEADINGS ARISING FROM INADVERTENCE OF PREVIOUS COUNSEL AS GROUND FOR AMENDMENT

---

“the Applicants, in the course of this suit, changed its Counsel and duly notified this Honourable Court and Respondent. That in exercise of their constitutional right to fair hearing and a just determination of the issues in this suit, the Applicants now wish to amend the earlier filed Statement of Defence, having discovered that several material facts and documents vital to the determination of this suit by this Honourable Court were omitted in the original Statement of Defence. That the omissions are material to securing substantial justice in this case. That a litigant should not be punished for the mistake or inadvertence of his Counsel, where such omission can be remedied without causing injustice to the other party.” — Per M.A. Hamza, J.

 

---

CASES CITED

---

---

STATUTES REFERRED TO

---

• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) — Section 36

• National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 — Order 17 Rule 1; Order 26 Rules 1 and 2

 

---

OTHER CITATIONS

---

---

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL JUDGMENT

---

COUNSEL

---

1. Aaron Abraham Brown for the Claimant/Respondent

2. I. Obah with F. I. Adebo for the Defendants/Applicants