Suburban Telecoms Limited & Ors V. Solution Plus Limited (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

JOSEPH EYO EKANEM, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment)

This appeal is against the ruling of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, holden at Abuja in Suit No, FCT/HC/CV/1017/08 delivered on 10/5/2010 (not 21/4/2010 as stated in appellant’s brief) in which the application of the respondent (as plaintiff) to amend its statement of claim after close of evidence was granted.

Aggrieved by the ruling, the appellants (the defendants in the suit) have appealed to this Court by way of a notice of appeal bearing 14 grounds of appeal. In line with the rules of Court, the parties have filed their briefs of argument as follows:

(1) The appellants filed;

(a) A 51 – page brief of argument filed on 27/3/2012;

(b) An unpaginated reply brief filed on 1/2/2015 but deemed filed on 2/3/2016.

(2) The respondent filed a 16 – page respondent’s brief filed on 2/3/2016 but deemed filed on 2/3/2016.

In his brief of argument appellant’s counsel, out of the 14 grounds of appeal formulated 14 issues for determination of the appeal as follows:

(A) Whether the learned trial Judge has not breached the defendants/Appellants

1

right to hearing or fair hearing as enshrined in Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution when it granted an order for the plaintiff to amend its pleading by stating some new averments as its relates to its original relief No. 1 which is a claim for N2,630,500 particularly plaintiff original relief No.1 to now read or become a claim for N6,806,519 after the defendants have joined issues with the plaintiff/respondent on the said previous relief No. I which was originally a claim for N2,630,500 and even after a the defendants had closed their case and even after defendants counsel had filed and adopted their written address on the said original relief No.1 which has a claim for N2,630,500.

(B) Whether the teamed trial Judge was legally right when it granted an amendment which relates to or in respect of a new relief No. 1 which was copiously introduced by the plaintiff at a very late stage after the closure of the parties case and even after the defendant had filed and adopted its written address so as to over reach the defendants because it was a deliberate wrong which has arisen from ill-will.

(c) Whether, it was legally right for the learned trial

2