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