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