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.”
