Bce Consulting Engineers V. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (2003)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

SULEIMAN GALADIMA, J.C.A. 

This is an application brought by the respondent seeking for the following orders:
“1. AN ORDER substituting the following party/title for the plaintiff/respondent in this case:
BCE CONSULTING ENGINEERING (a Partnership firm otherwise known as BCE Consulting Engineers)

Alternatively

AN ORDER adding the following party that is BCE CONSULTANT ENGINEERING (a Partnership firm otherwise known as BCE Consulting Engineers) as plaintiff/respondent in this appeal.

2. AN ORDER enlarging time within which the plaintiff/respondent may file and serve a ‘respondent’s notice’ in this appeal.

3. AN ORDER deeming the ‘respondent’s notice’ filed by the plaintiff/respondent on 22nd day of November, 2002 as having been properly filed.

4. AN ORDER enlarging the time within which the respondent may cross-appeal against the judgment of the court below delivered on 7th March, 2002.

5. AN ORDER deeming the notice of cross-appeal dated 22nd day of November, 2002 already filed as having been properly filed.”

The application is supported by a 22-paragraph affidavit to which 3 exhibits, BCE – 1 – copy of the respondent/appellant’s Certificate of Registration of Business name issued by the Corporate Affairs Commission Abuja. BCE – 2 – respondent’s notice; and BCE – 3 – notice of cross-appeal were attached.

The appellant filed a 12-paragraph counter-affidavit in opposition to the application to substitute the name of the respondent or join an additional respondent.

Pursuant to the order of this court made on 26/5/2003, written submissions were filed by the parties in this matter.

On the 29/9/2003 when this motion was argued both counsel adopted and relied on their respective written submissions.

The learned counsel for the applicant T. Oyetibo sought for leave of this court to abandon the second and third relief to file respondent’s notice and deeming order respectively. Accordingly, in this ruling, I shall not consider those two prayers. They are therefore struck out. So the application now is to substitute the name of the respondent or join an additional respondent. The applicant is also seeking for an order for extension of time with which they may cross-appeal against the judgment of the lower court delivered on 7/3/2002.

For the amendment sought to substitute the name of the respondent, learned senior counsel relying on Order 1 rule 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules, submitted that this court has power to grant an amendment as to the endorsement of the names of the parties contained on the writ of summons as in the instant case. For the Federal High Court, it is further submitted that it has power under Order 27 rule 2 of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules to grant such amendment.