Olaniran v. Adebayo (2022)

LAWGLOBAL HUB Lead Judgment Report – SUPREME COURT

AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C. (Delivering the Lead Judgment)

In 1990, the Appellant, who was the tenant of the Respondent at Flat No. 6. Block 430, Mile 2 Housing Estate, Amuwo Odofin, Lagos State, which was allocated to him by the Lagos Building Investment Co. Ltd., offered to buy the Flat from the Respondent. The Respondent accepted, and they orally agreed that the Appellant would pay N60, 000.00 for it.

The Appellant paid by installments. The Respondent accepted the sum of N40,000.00 paid by Appellant on 24/4/1990 and 8/10/1990. But he refused to cash the cheque for N20,000.00 dated 19/8/1991, and another cheque for N4, 000.00, issued to him by the Appellant. When the Respondent refused to execute the Agreement, the Appellant filed an action at the Lagos State High Court, wherein he claimed inter alia:
​Specific performance of the agreement for the Assignment of the flat known as Flat 6, Block 430, Mile II Estate, Amuwo Odofin.

​During the proceedings, after the Appellant and his wife had testified, the Respondent applied for leave to amend his Statement of Defence, and in granting the Application as prayed, the trial

Court ordered that:
Leave is hereby granted to the Defendant to amend his Statement of Defence in terms of the Amended Statement of Defence – – The Amended Statement of Defence – – is hereby deemed as properly filed and served.
The Plaintiff is given 14 days to file an amend (sic) Statement of Claim in reaction to the amendments effected. As the Defendant has not opened his case, the Plaintiff should he so desire, is permitted to re-open his case.

Pursuant to the above order, the Appellant filed an Amended Statement of Claim, wherein he also amended the reliefs sought, but they include:

2. Specific Performance of the Agreement for Sale/Assignment of the Flat known as Flat 6, Block 430, Mile 11 Estate, Amuwo Odofin, Lagos State.

In his Amended Statement of Defence and Amended Counter claim, the Respondent also counter-claimed “re-entry and possession” and “a further Order that the Plaintiff vacate possession and pay all rents in arrears, together with mesne profits”. At the close of the trial, Counsel adopted their Written Addresses, and, in his Address, the Respondent’s counsel argued that the new reliefs in the Amended Statement of Claim are inconsistent with those in the original pleadings. In his Judgment of 12/3/2002, the learned trial Judge, Adefope-Okojie, J., held as follows:

On 14/7/98 pursuant to an application by the Defendant and unopposed by the Plaintiff, leave was granted to the Defendant to amend his Statement of Defence.

The Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim in reaction to the amendments affected. Conceding that what the Court should have allowed was not leave to the Plaintiff to file an Amended Statement of Claim, but a Reply, as allowed in Order 20 Rule 1.

I however observe that what (he) filed was not in reaction to the amendments effected, as directed, but a complete amendment of his claim. The Relief in the initial Statement of Claim is for – – In the Amended Statement of Claim – – the reliefs, however sought are—This latter Statement of Claim cannot be held to be a reaction to the amendment effected by the defence. I accordingly discountenance these new reliefs sought and look to the relief in the initial Statement of Claim.

On the merits of the case, he concluded as follows in his Judgment:

The Plaintiff’s claim for specific performance and damages for breach of contract are dismissed. The Plaintiff is, however, awarded the total sum of N55,942.40 being a refund of the N40,000.00 paid by him and cost of repairs and renovations carried out. Interest is awarded at the rate of seven and a half per cent per annum from today until final payment.

The claim for interest from date of payment is refused, as Plaintiff has not contended that he demanded the repayment of this sum and that same was refused. The Counterclaim for re-entry and possession is dismissed. Also dismissed is the claim for mesne profits. The Plaintiff shall, however, pay to the Defendant the sum of N35,000.00 as arrears of rent.

Parties were dissatisfied with the Judgment of the trial Court, and they filed an Appeal and a Cross Appeal respectively at the Court of Appeal.
In its Judgment of 17/5/2007, wherein it referred to Parties as ACR – Appellant/Cross-Respondent and RCA – Respondent/Cross-Appellant, the Court of Appeal held as follows on the Issue of the said Pleadings:
Once an order of amendment has been granted and complied with, both the Court and the Parties are bound by the amendment, which becomes the new pleadings of the Party concerned.