Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (Armti) V. Mr. S.f. Baiyere (2004)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

TIJJANI ABDULLAHI J.C.A.

The application dated the 11th day of February 2004 and filed on the same day by the applicant is praying for the following orders:

i. An order granting leave to the respondent to Amend his Brief of Argument as attached to the Affidavit in support of the motion and marked as Exhibit ‘C’.

ii. An Order that the Amended Brief of Argument of the Respondent be deemed as having duly filed and served.

The application is supported by a 7 paragraph Affidavit, attached to the said Affidavit are three Exhibits, A, B, and C. It is further supported by another Affidavit titled Reply to Counter Affidavit. It was dated and filed on the 5th day of March, 2004.

This Affidavit consists of 15 paragraphs. Attached to it is Exhibit D, a letter to the Hon. Attorney-General by the counsel to the Appellant/Respondent. This reply to the Counter Affidavit like the supporting Affidavit was deposed to by the Applicant/Respondent himself.

Counsel for the Applicant/Respondent Mr. John Olusola Baiyeshea, moving his application placed reliance on the averments contained in the two supporting Affidavits stated therein. Reliance was also placed on Exhibits A, B, and C attached thereto.

Learned counsel submitted that only one issue calls for determination in the said application to wit:

“Whether having regard to the general circumstances of this case, it is proper for this Honourable Court to exercise discretion to grant the appellant’s prayer to amend his brief of argument.”

Learned counsel submitted that the facts deposed to in the two Affidavits are sufficient for the court to exercise its discretion in favour of his client. He drew the attention of the court to Order 1 Rule 19(1) of the Court of Appeal, Rules 2002 and contended that the court has the power to grant the application under the provision of the said Rule.

Learned counsel further submitted that reinstatement is an issue in this appeal and referred the court to the processes filed in this case, especially the briefs of argument. Learned counsel went on to submit that it is relevant and important to draw the attention of the court to the fact of reinstatement in reply to counsel’s submission in the appellant’s brief that the appellant is not willing to reinstate the applicant. Learned counsel contended that the reinstatement that has taken place is a fact which should not be kept away from the court.

Learned counsel submitted that the interest of Justice will better be served if the application is granted. It is the contention of the learned counsel that by granting the application, the respondent will have nothing to lose. On the contrary, the applicant has a lot to lose if the application is not granted as there is no other way by which the fact of his reinstatement can be brought before the court. He cited the case of: First Bank vs. May Clinics (2001) 4 SCNJ 1 at p. 20 to buttress his submission.

Learned counsel for the appellant/respondent Chief Mrs. V.O. Awomolo (SAN) like counsel for the respondent/applicant also formulated one issue for determination to wit:

“Whether the amendment being sought derive from the grounds of appeal filed by the Appellant/Respondent or the case at the Lower Court.”