RULES FOR GRANTING AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS

• Date: 06 February 2019

(1) "It is well settled law that an amendment of pleadings should be allowed unless-

(1) it will entail injustice to the respondent. (2) the applicant is acting mala fide. (See Tildesley v. Harper (1878) 10 Ch. D. 393 at p. 396 or (3) by his blunder, the applicant has done some injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise. (See Tildesley’s case (supra); Oguntimehin v. Gubere (1964) 1 All N.L.R. 176 at p. 179; and Amadi v. Thomas Aplin & Co. Ltd. (1972) 1 All N.L.R. 409). The correct principle to guide a Court in considering whether to grant an applica-tion for amendment of pleadings was aptly expressed by Bowen L.J. in. Cropper v. Smith (1884) 26 Ch.D. 700 at p. 710 and 711 when he said: - "I think it is a well established principle that the object of Courts is to decide the rights of the parties, and not to punish them for mistakes which they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights I know of no kind of error or mistake which, if not fraudulent or intended to overreach, the Court ought not to correct, if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline, but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy and I do not regard such amendment as a matter of favour or of grace . . It seems to me that as soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to decision of the real matter in controversy, it is as much as matter of right on this part to have it corrected, if it can be done without injustice, as anything else in the case is a matter of right". Smith L.J. expressed his emphatic agreement with these observations in Shoe Machinery Co. v. Cutlan (1896) 1 Ch. 108 at p. 112. Adverting to the present application, it cannot be disputed that the application by the plaintiffs to substitute the figures "1973" for "1972" became necessary so as to bring the evidence already given, and which was not objected to, in line with the pleadings. It is clear from the authorities that this application ought to have been granted by the learned Judge. We shall first refer to the Privy Council case of Ababio IV v. Quartey & Another which was cited by the West African Court of Appeal in England v. Palmer (1955) 14 W.A.C.A. 659 at p. 661 and in which the following observations were made by the Privy Council: - "The Court ought to have allowed all the necessary amendments that were required for the...