Central Bank of Nigeria V. Uchenna Godswill Dinneh (2005)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

MARY U. PETER ODILI, J.C.A.

This is an appeal against the ruling of Honorable Justice A.I. Chikere of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, whereby the learned Judge granted the application of the Plaintiff/Respondent in allowing the amendment sought of the Statement of Claim by a motion of 18/10/2004, which read inter alia:-

(1) An order granting leave to the Plaintiff/Applicant to further amend his statement of claim in term of the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A”.

The Schedule of Amendment stated as follows:-

”SCHEDULE OF AMENDMENT”

AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. Add the following words immediately after the word ‘suit’ which is the last word in paragraph 12 “which document was made pursuant to the provision of the (law) Act setting up the defendant.
2. Add the following immediately after the last word in paragraph 52 “although plaintiff is still willing and able to work if given the opportunity”
3. Remember the original paragraph 60 in the amended statement of claim as No. 61 and add a new paragraph 60 as Follows:

“(60) But for the decision of the defendant which was based on wrong premises and unfounded. Plaintiff would have remained in the employment of the defendant until he attains the age of 60 years when he would have put in 35 years in service”

4. In the new paragraph 61 (that is, original paragraph 60 of the amended statement of claim dealing with reliefs) add a (new) relief as an alternative relief to relief No. 3 immediately after the said original relief 3 as follows:

“ALTERNATIVELY:

a. An order directed at or against the defendant to pay to the plaintiff his salary and other emoluments mentioned in paragraph 58 above for the remainder of 13 years which the plaintiff would have served but for the wrongful action of the defendant mentioned in the statement of claim.

b. Further, order directed at or against the Defendant for the immediate payment to the plaintiff the latter’s gratuity and pension benefit calculated as if the plaintiff had retired at the age of 60 years and as if (six) he has served the defendant for 35 years.

c. An order directed at or against the defendant for payment of all other entitlements to the plaintiff as obtain or applicable in the policy, practice and or tradition of the defendant”.

The Application was supported by a 16 paragraph affidavit with Exhibit A (Schedule of amendment). There was no counter affidavit. The motion was extensively argued by counsel on either side and the learned trial Judge on 1/12/04 delivered her ruling and stated inter alia in conclusion:

“The issue for determination is ‘whether the reliefs sought to be amended in the schedule to amendment need calling of fresh witnesses with respect the answer is No. As I have already stated the facts of the Plaintiffs salary and emoluments (sic) are pleaded already in paragraph 58 of the Statement of Claim. I agree with learned (Counsel) L.O. Fagbemi (SAN) that the evidence in support of the new relief sought to be amended is already on record, so that it is necessary and in the interest of justice that the amendment be allowed. I so hold. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of IMONIKHE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, BENDEL STATE, (supra).

The Defendant/Respondent may if necessary amend its Statement of Defence.