Compagnie Generale De Geophysique (Nigeria) Limited & Anor V. Jumbo Idorenyin (2015)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report

MARY UKAEGO PETER-ODILI, J.S.C.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Port Harcourt Division, Coram: Omage, Fabiyi and Dongban-Mensem JJCA affirming the ruling of the trial High Court per Goodhead J. sitting at Isiokpo High Court made on the 12th day of December, 1997 refusing defendants/appellants leave to further amend their Statement of Defence.

FACTS BRIEFLY STATED:

The background facts to this appeal would be captured hereunder and thus:-

The Appellants, as Defendants in the Trial Court, had sought a further amendment of their statement of defence at a point in the trial when plaintiff had closed its case and the amendments sought, in the opinion of the learned trial judge would “overreach” and “work injustice” on the plaintiff, since it had sought to introduce fresh facts which in the opinion of the learned trial court and affirmed by the Court below, were not in existence at the point in time when the suit was commenced. Specifically, the defendant had sought to introduce facts relating to a “camp boss” with the objective that the person so designated at all material times to the suit, would be called as defence witness No. 1. The plaintiff, (Respondent herein) objected to the motion for amendment by filing a counter affidavit and deposed that there was no office of “Camp Boss” at the material times to the suit and that the person defendant seeks to introduce into the proceedings as the holder of such office at the material time was a junior staff, newly recruited into the 1st defendant’s employment as a “Radio Assistant”. The learned trial Judge found that the material averments in the Counter-Affidavit were not controverted. He therefore accepted them and held as follows:-

“Now, the amendment sought in the instant case, is introducing for the first time the position of a Camp Boss and specifically mentioned the name of an Officer vide Mr. Tamunoemi Briggs as holding that office at the material time when the Plaintiff/Respondent has closed his case…….. These Paragraphs [for the counter-affidavit] with the exhibits attached thereto are uncontroverted and therefore the depositions therein stand as unchallenged evidence. Taken against this background, I am of the view that to allow the amendment sought at this stage will be tantamount to overreach the Plaintiff/Respondent and work injustice against the him [the plaintiff] which all the authorities cited by both sides are opposed to. In the circumstances the application is refused”.

Being dissatisfied with that decision, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal or Lower Court or Court Below for short. In its judgment dated 29th day of June, 2005, the Court of Appeal held inter alia:

“The amendment sought is intended to put the appellant in a better position to defeat the plaintiff’s action”, and further that “the real issue is if the position of a “Camp Boss” existed at the beginning of the proceedings, it was not included in the statement of defence……. The attempt to introduce the issue of “Camp Boss” at the stage when the function now ascribed to Camp Boss was in their earlier statement of defence were attributed to Mr. Sauvanet Jean Louis, the 2nd defendant/appellant. In my view, it is a clear index to the intention of the defendants/appellants to introduce into the proceedings a fresh issue, which did not exist at the commencement of the action. It is not an omission, a blunder or an error. It seeks to overreach. This should not be allowed. It is an attempt to alter the nature of the defence of the defendant/appellant’s case and it should not be allowed…..”

Further dissatisfied, the Defendant/Appellant has appealed to this Court on a 5 ground Notice of Appeal.

On the 23rd February, 2015 date of hearing, the learned counsel for the Respondent informed the Court of his intention to abandon the Notice of Preliminary Objection he filed dated 30th day of March, 2006. The arguments thereof were incorporated in the Respondent’s Brief of Argument. The Objection and arguments thereof were accordingly struck out.

Chief Richard Ahonaruogho of counsel for the Appellants adopted their Brief of argument settled by D.O. Ezaga and filed on 12/2/06 and a Reply Brief filed on 12/3/07. The Appellant raised a sole issue for determination of the appeal which is as follows:-

Whether the learned justices were right in rejecting the Appellants’ right to amend their pleadings

Mr. Henry Omu of counsel for the Respondent adopted their Brief of Argument settled by Dejo Lamikanra Esq. and filed on 10/6/06. He identified a lone issue for determination crafted thus:-

Whether the Court below was correct in affirming the decision of the trial court refusing the amendment sought by the Appellants herein (as defendants) on the basis that the amendment sought was immaterial, sought to introduce fresh facts and was intended to overreach.