Undefended List Procedure

It is trite that where the Defendant, in an undefended list procedure, admits a liquidated debt in writing, he has afforded the plaintiff good ground for instituting the procedure. Eldorado (Nig.) Ltd. v. Jimfat (Nig) Ltd (1973) 3 CCHCJ 93; Aikabeli v. A.P. Plc. (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt.708) 93

instances where amendments of pleadings will not be granted

It is trite that parties are at liberty to amend their pleadings whenever it is appropriate to do so in order to bring into focus the real issues in controversy for determination by the court BUT.... An amendment that gives an impression of an act in BAD FAITH is not to be entertained and allowed. What is paramount in the mind of the court always is to ensure that justice is served to all parties who should not be allowed to take UNDUE ADVANTAGE of the other. The court in checking against any such surreptitious motive will always consider the balance of convenience between parties of the outcome of the application. In general, amendment which will enhance the Justice of a case will hardly be refused by any court except however it occurs to the judge in his opinion that the intention is FRAUDULENT and with a HIDDEN AGENDA which will generally work INJUSTICE against the opponent. The law in such a situation has therefore given the court wide discretionary powers to exercise in the determination of each case which should be considered always on its own peculiar circumstances, bearing in mind that same sets of cases with similar facts may not necessarily yield the same outcome. Amendments are more easily granted where the grant does not necessitate the calling of additional evidence or changing the character of the case on the ground that no prejudice would result from the amendment. Laguro v. Tolu (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.223) 228; Imonikhe v. A.-G; Bendel State (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt.248) 396

grounds of law, facts and mixed law and facts

In giving a distinction between a ground of law and a ground of fact of mixed law and fact, the Supreme Court had evolved certain principles that would assist the courts. A question of law connotes one of three meanings to wit: (a) a question a court is bound to answer in accordance with a rule of law; or (b) a question which explains what the law is; or (c) a question which normally answers questions on law only and invariably, falls within the judicial power of a judex to answer. Contrariwise, a question of fact denotes one of three meanings, viz:- (a) a question which is not determined by a rule of law; or (b) any question except one as to what the law is; or (c) any question which is to be answered by the Jury and not the Judge. Thor Ltd. v. F.C.M.B Ltd (2002)4 NWLR (Pt.757)427; FBN Plc v. T.S.A Ind.Ltd. (2010) 15 NWLR (Pt.1216) 247; General Electric Co. v. Akande (2010) 18 NWLR (Pt.1225) 596; Abubakar v. Waziri (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt.1108)507; Ugboaja v. Akitoye-Sowemimo (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt.1113) 278

Jurisdiction and competence of action

Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to entertain a matter pre sented before it. A competent action infuses jurisdiction into a court and makes it amenable to adjudication. The converse is true. An incompetent suit dispossesses a court of the jurisdiction to entertain it. Put strictly, the competence or incompetence of an action is a jurisdictional issue. There is therefore no distinction between jurisdiction and competence of action. Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341

whether litigant can appear as legal practitioner for himself and co- litigant

A litigant who is a legal practitioner conducts his case as a litigant,not as a legal practitioner representing himself,, the litigant. Thus,a person cannot appeal both as a person, and as a counsel for himself. There cannot be a mixture of the two characters. Hence a litigant who is a legal practitioner cannot represent a co-defendant, because he is also not appearing as a legal practitioner, but as a litigant. On the other hand, a litigant who is a legal practitioner has the right like any other litigant to engage the services of a legal practitioner to represent him. Fawehinmi v. NBA (No . 1 ) ( 1987 ) 2NWLR (Pt.105)494

meaning of preliminary objection

A preliminary objection as the name implies is an objection preliminary to the hearing of an appeal, hence a challenge to the competence of an appeal. It is a terminal legal weapon employed by counsel tot truncate even the most meritorious claims. The purpose of a preliminary objection to an appeal is to contend that the appeal is incompetent and fundamentally defective, which if it succeeds, would put an end to the appeal. Hence preliminary objections are inappropriate where even if they succeed will not terminate the appeal. A motion on notice should be used instead. NEPA v. Ango (2001) 15 NWLR (Pt.737) 627; Odunukwe v. Ofomata (2010) 18NWLR (Pt.1224)404; Mohammed v. Military Administrator Plateau State (2001) 18 NWLR (Pt.744)183

era of delaying tactics

I have to state at least to decry the practice that has unfolded before this court in this application, documents and arguments seeking to persuade the court to go along as that of a deployment of tricks of a trade to frustrate or stultify through seductive arguments the right properly inuring to a party. This practice has to stop and a party has to know where to pull the brakes and fulfill obligations it has a duty to do and to comply with court orders such as the Garnishee Order Absolute. The administration of justice has no room for dribbling as usually seen in football fields of play while a successful party is made to suffer when justice is on its side. Okafor v. Nnaife (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt.64) 129 at 137; NNPC v. Famfa Oil Ltd. (2009) 12 NWLR (Pt.1156) 462 at 481

meaning of preliminary objection

Preliminary Objection is the procedure to be adopted where a respondent opposes to the hearing of an appeal, the purpose of preliminary objection is to terminate the hearing of an appeal in limine either partially or totally. S.P.D.C Nig. Ltd. v. Amadi (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt.1266) 157

Meaning of Garnishee order absolute

A garnishee order absolute means an executed judgment and being a completed act, one wonders how an order of stay can either be ordered or carried out. A.-G; Anambra State v. Okafor (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt.224) 396; Badejo v. Fed. Min. Of Education (1996) 8NWLR (Pt.464) 15

Difference between Murder and Manslaughter

Difference between Murder and Manslaughter Murder is unlawful homicide with malice aforethought. Manslaughter is unlawful homicide without malice aforethought. The term aforethought doesn't necessarily imply pre meditation, but implies intention which must necessarily precede the act intended. Amayo v State (2001) 18NWLR (Pt.745) 251

Parties are bound by the contract they voluntarily entered into and cannot act outside the terms and conditions contained in the contract and neither of the parties to a contract can alter or read into a written agreement a term which is not embodied in it. A court must treat as sacrosanct the terms of an agreement freely entered into by the parties as parties to a contract enjoy their freedom to contract on their own terms so long as same is lawful. The terms of a contract between parties are clothed with some degree of sanctity and if any question should arise with regard to the contract, the terms in any document which constitute the contract are the invariable guide to its intrepretation. A.I.B. Ltd v. I.D.S Ltd (2012) 17 NWLR (Pt.1328) 1; Lagos State Govt. v. Toluwase (2013) 1 NWLR (Pt.1336) 555 Omega Bank (Nig) Plc v O.B.C ltd (2005) 8NWLR (Pt. 928) 547; BFI Group Corp v. B.P.E (2012) 18 NWLR (Pt.1332) 209 Dapsan v. Mangu LGC (2013) 2NWLR (Pt.1338) 203

By the general rules of the common law...it is competent to the parties at any time before breach of it, by a new contract not in writing, either altogether to waive, dissolve, or annul the former agreements, or in any manner add to, substract from or vary or qualify the terms of it and thus make a contract..."

A Novation is a transaction whereby a new contract or new parties to a contract by consent of both paties express or implied is deemed to have been substituted for or with the one originally made, or a material part thereof is added to or materoally amended

Facts have no views. A judgment should always be read in the light of the facts on which the case was decided. The rules of stare decisis do not allow courts to apply the ratio of a case across the board and with little regard to the facts of the case before them. This is because decisions of courts draw their inspiration and strength from the facts which framed the issues for decision and once such decisions are made they control future judgment in like or similar cases, hence the facts of two cases must either be the same or at least similar before a decision in the earlier case can be used in the later case. Emeka v. Okadigbo (2012)18 NWLR (Pt.1331) 55; Fawehinmi v. NBA (No.2)(1989) 2 NWLR (Pt.105) 558

Principles guiding the grant or refusal of amendments

On Principles guiding the grant or refusal of  amendments Ndefo v Obiese (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.692) 820 An amendment of the pleadings for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties will be allowed at any stage of the proceedings unless such amendment will entail injustice or surprise or embarrassment to other party or where the applicant is acting mala fide or by his blunder the applicant has done some injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise Ehidimhen v Musa  (2000) 8NWLR (Pt.699)540 SC The court will always look at the materiality of a proposed amendment before making an order. Thus, where an amendment will allow the pleadings to be in line with evidence and findings made by the trial Judge the same will be allowed An amendment of pleadings should be allowed UNLESS (a) it will entail injustice to the respondent; or (b) the applicant is acting mala fide; or (c) by his blunder, the applicant has done some injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated for by costs or otherwise See also Ojah v Ogboni (1976) 4 SC 69 An amendment that is designed to create a suit that was not in existence is not permissible. See St Mathew-Daniel v Bamgbose 19 NLR 73 FBN plc v Tsokwa. (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt.685) 521 (CA) On when court will refuse to grant application for amendment where: *The amendment will cause injustice to a party to the proceedings. *The amendment will surprise or cause embarrasment to the other party *The applicant is acting mala fide in bringing the application for amendment *The applicant by blunder has donr some injury to the respondent which cannot be compensated by costs or otherwise *The amendment has the effect of changing the action into one of a substantially different character *The amendment will not cure the defect in the proceedings *The amendment is inconsistent and useless *The amendment is not material *The amendment is capable of causing undue delay to the case See also the case of FBN v May Med Clinics and Diagnostic Centre Lttd (1996) 9 NWLR (Pt.471) 195 LIST OF CASES Ehidimhen v. Musa (2000) 8NWLR (Pt.699)540 SC FBN Plc v Tsokwa (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt.685) 521 CA Ndefo v Obiese (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.692) 820 CA