Skip to main content

Are processes attached to amended pleadings still valid in law?

 However, in the case of Gusau v. Comptroller General of Customs & Ors. [2014] LPELR-23367[CA] 18-19, the Court of Appeal held that processes attached to the original pleading which has been amended are still valid and can be relied on in determination of the suit. Ekanem, J.C.A., who read the leading judgment, held thus:

 

“I agree with counsel for the respondents that the written statement on oath is a distinct process from the statement of defence. It serves, inter alia, to support the statement of defence but it is not a part of it. This is why it is assessed and paid for distinctly. Thus, a statement of defence may be amended by order of Court and the amended statement of defence filed without the need to file an amended or fresh witness statement on oath. An amended pleading or process including a statement of defence has a retrospective effect and dates back to the date of the original process…It follows from the above that when the lower Court granted the respondents leave to amend their statement of defence and the already filed amended statement of defence was deemed as properly filed, the amended statement of defence took effect from the date of the original statement of defence and indeed took its place. Whatever was filed to support the original statement of defence is thus deemed to support the amended statement of defence from the date of the original statement of defence.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

THE UNDEFENDED LIST PROCEDURE: AN UNENDING DEBATE ON AN EXPARTE APPLICATION TO PLACE A SUIT THEREUNDER OR OTHERWISE

The Undefended list procedure recently caught my attention while reading through the pages of some new decisions of the apex court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Just like other well known procedural aspects of law that refuse to get buried in old reports, the mode of application for an Undefended list is still very much a contention, as it continues to appear over the years. Now in order not to mistaken

LAWAL OSULA V. LAWAL OSULA (1995) 10 SCNJ 84; AN OVERVIEW

By Janet Babajide (Miss) LLB  B.l. INTRODUCTION It is generally believed that a person possess the right to make a Will according to his wishes or desire. While this is true, can this right be said to be absolute? What is the position of the Customary Law and Islamic Law in respect of Wills making? To what extent is the Limitation Law applicable to issues of succession under the Customary Law? This case is a decisionof the Supreme Court and borders on succession/inheritance under the Bini Native Law and Custom viz a viz an action therefrom being caught under the tentacles of the Limitation Law of the old Bendel State. An overview of this case seeks to answer all the aforestated questions.

Documents Listed but not Front-loaded with Pleadings (Update)

My attention was called to an authority a few days ago about the topic. I instantly recalled making an argument for the position taken by the Court in an earlier post which can be found  here . The position of the law regarding front-loading documents alongside pleadings has taken a twist in favour of doing substantial justice.