1 in the high court of the gambia held at banjul on monday the 25th ...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIA HELD AT BANJUL ON MONDAY THE25 TH DAY OF MARCH 2010, BEFORE HON. JUSTICE MAMA FATIMASINGHATEH.HC/334/93L.NO6BETWEENULF LINDENMARGARETA LINDEN(by <strong>the</strong>ir Attorney Mang J<strong>at</strong>ta)PLAINTIFFS/ APPLICANTSANDAMADOU MARENADEFENDANT/RESPONDENTRULINGThis is a rul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> respect <strong>of</strong> a motion d<strong>at</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> 8 th February 2010 pray<strong>in</strong>g for anorder grant<strong>in</strong>g leave to <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff/ applicants to amend <strong>the</strong>ir writ <strong>of</strong> summons andst<strong>at</strong>ement <strong>of</strong> claim filed before this <strong>court</strong> on <strong>the</strong> 10 th November 1993. The motion issupported by a 14 paragraph affidavit sworn to by one Is<strong>at</strong>ou Nyang <strong>of</strong> AntoumanGaye Chambers. There is an affidavit <strong>in</strong> opposition d<strong>at</strong>ed <strong>the</strong> 9 th March 2010deposed to by one F<strong>at</strong>ou Jarjue Kanteh <strong>of</strong> Bansansang Chambers.Learned counsel for <strong>the</strong> applicants Mr. A.A.B Gaye submitted to <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong>applic<strong>at</strong>ion was for <strong>the</strong> amendment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> title <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suit and th<strong>at</strong> it did not <strong>in</strong> anyway touch on <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>in</strong> controversy between <strong>the</strong> parties th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> is calledupon to determ<strong>in</strong>e and <strong>the</strong> grant<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> applic<strong>at</strong>ion would not prejudice <strong>the</strong>defendants or cause a miscarriage <strong>of</strong> justice.Learned counsel for <strong>the</strong> respondent Ms. N Cham vigorously opposed this applic<strong>at</strong>ionon <strong>the</strong> grounds th<strong>at</strong> it was not an applic<strong>at</strong>ion for a m<strong>in</strong>or amendment th<strong>at</strong> thisapplic<strong>at</strong>ion went to <strong>the</strong> root <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole suit. She submitted th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> grant<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>1

apply<strong>in</strong>g was act<strong>in</strong>g malafide or th<strong>at</strong> by his blunder he has done some <strong>in</strong>jury to hisopponent which could not be compens<strong>at</strong>ed for by costs or o<strong>the</strong>rwise”.The above authorities support <strong>the</strong> grant<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> leave to amend no m<strong>at</strong>ter wh<strong>at</strong> so longas <strong>the</strong> error or mistake be<strong>in</strong>g corrected is not fraudulent or <strong>in</strong>tended to overreachand th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> mistake has caused or will cause an <strong>in</strong>jury th<strong>at</strong> can be compens<strong>at</strong>ed forby costs. I consider th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong>se are very important po<strong>in</strong>ts to ponder on. It is on thisbasis I ask a second question which is whe<strong>the</strong>r this <strong>court</strong> should grant <strong>the</strong>applic<strong>at</strong>ion.The respondent through his counsel has argued to <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> th<strong>at</strong> although <strong>the</strong> lawprovides for amendments to be granted <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>of</strong> justice, th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>of</strong>justice should not only be considered <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff alone ra<strong>the</strong>r it mustapply to both parties and any amendment <strong>at</strong> this l<strong>at</strong>e stage which goes to <strong>the</strong> root <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> issue such as to change <strong>the</strong> parties will be prejudicial to <strong>the</strong> respondent. Learnedcounsel for <strong>the</strong> respondent fur<strong>the</strong>r submitted th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondent had already filedhis written address and one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> issues raised <strong>in</strong> said address was on <strong>the</strong>constitution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suit and it was after service <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> said address th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> applicantfiled <strong>the</strong>ir applic<strong>at</strong>ion to amend and this would prejudice <strong>the</strong>ir case as <strong>the</strong> defencewas conducted based on <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff’s case as it was constituted.I f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>the</strong> above submissions very compell<strong>in</strong>g and agree th<strong>at</strong> it was after <strong>the</strong>defendant/ respondent filed <strong>the</strong>ir address th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiff/ applicant saw <strong>the</strong> need toamend <strong>the</strong>ir writ <strong>of</strong> summons and st<strong>at</strong>ement <strong>of</strong> claim hence change <strong>the</strong>ir position.The proposed amendment will undoubtedly amount to an <strong>in</strong>tent to over-reachwhere<strong>in</strong> both parties have closed <strong>the</strong>ir case and one has filed his address rely<strong>in</strong>g on<strong>the</strong> conduct <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r’s case, only to have th<strong>at</strong> position changed.Will this action however unfairly prejudice <strong>the</strong> respondent/defendant? because if itdoes <strong>the</strong>n I would not consider it appropri<strong>at</strong>e to grant <strong>the</strong> applic<strong>at</strong>ion. See G.L BakerLtd v Medway Build<strong>in</strong>g and Supplies Ltd (supra) and Halsbury’s Laws <strong>of</strong> England 4 thEdition Vol 36 para 70 <strong>at</strong> page 54.4

The case <strong>of</strong> Njie v Ch<strong>in</strong>a Build<strong>in</strong>g M<strong>at</strong>erial Industrial Corpor<strong>at</strong>ion for Eco-technicalcooper<strong>at</strong>ion (CBMC) (1995/96) GR 239 <strong>at</strong> 241, established th<strong>at</strong> an applic<strong>at</strong>ion foramendment will be granted if <strong>the</strong> “<strong>the</strong> applic<strong>at</strong>ion <strong>in</strong> not made mala fide and wouldnot unfairly prejudice <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r party because after all <strong>the</strong> duty <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> is to dosubstantial justice between <strong>the</strong> parties” (underl<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>e). I consider th<strong>at</strong> because <strong>the</strong>ma<strong>in</strong> duty <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> is to do substantial justice between <strong>the</strong> parties, this <strong>court</strong> hasgone through all <strong>the</strong> evidence before it and has found without delv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong>substantive issues <strong>in</strong> this suit, th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> sole purpose <strong>of</strong> this amendment is to br<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>writ <strong>of</strong> summons and st<strong>at</strong>ement <strong>of</strong> claim <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with <strong>the</strong> evidence before this <strong>court</strong>.Wali JSC <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Supreme Court <strong>of</strong> Nigeria case <strong>of</strong> Shell v Amba (1999) 2 SCNJ 152<strong>at</strong> 160 st<strong>at</strong>ed th<strong>at</strong> “where an amendment has become imper<strong>at</strong>ive by reason <strong>of</strong>variance between <strong>the</strong> st<strong>at</strong>ement <strong>of</strong> claim and <strong>the</strong> evidence adduced <strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial by <strong>the</strong>pla<strong>in</strong>tiff, <strong>the</strong> <strong>court</strong> has always granted it even after <strong>the</strong> completion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> trial….”The proposed amendment does change <strong>the</strong> position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties from su<strong>in</strong>g by an<strong>at</strong>torney to su<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own names but it does not touch on <strong>the</strong> substantive issuesto be decided by this <strong>court</strong> which is whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re is sufficient evidence before this<strong>court</strong> to entitle <strong>the</strong> pla<strong>in</strong>tiffs/applicants to <strong>the</strong>ir claim. I <strong>the</strong>refore do not consider th<strong>at</strong>said amendment would unfairly prejudice <strong>the</strong> respondent as it does not touch on <strong>the</strong>real questions <strong>of</strong> controversy between <strong>the</strong> parties. I however do consider th<strong>at</strong> thisapplic<strong>at</strong>ion has caused some form <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>convenience or <strong>in</strong>jury which I believe may beaddressed by award<strong>in</strong>g costs <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondent.Leave to amend is <strong>the</strong>refore granted. The applicants are to amend <strong>the</strong>ir writ <strong>of</strong>summons and st<strong>at</strong>ement <strong>of</strong> claim and file <strong>the</strong>ir addresses with<strong>in</strong> 7days from <strong>the</strong> d<strong>at</strong>e<strong>of</strong> this order. This <strong>court</strong> fur<strong>the</strong>r orders costs <strong>of</strong> D3000 <strong>in</strong> favour <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> respondent.Hon Justice Mama F<strong>at</strong>ima S<strong>in</strong>gh<strong>at</strong>ehJudge25/3/105