The Guiding Principles of Amendments in Nigerian Civil Procedure: A Review of Key Judicial Authorities

By P. L. Osakwe
Amendments are an indispensable tool in the administration of justice. They ensure that litigation does not become a battle of technicalities but rather a sincere effort to ventilate the real grievances between parties. Nigerian courts have repeatedly emphasized that their ultimate duty is to decide the true issues in controversy and not to punish parties for inadvertent errors. This philosophy is clearly illustrated in the judicial authorities such as Ojah v. Ogboni (1976) All NLR 277, Adeniran v. Togunde (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 597) 781, and Folorunsho v. WAEC (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 556) 422.
This article examines these cases and distills the legal principles governing amendments of pleadings in Nigeria.

1. The Philosophy Behind Amendments: Doing Substantial Justice
In Ojah v. Ogboni (1976) All NLR 277 at 281, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-standing principle that courts must allow amendments where necessary to determine the real issues in controversy. The Court held that an amendment would generally be granted if:
it will bring before the court the real questions that must be addressed, and
it will prevent a multiplicity of actions.
The case underscores that amendments are not mere procedural indulgences; they are instruments for curing defects that may otherwise obscure the true nature of the dispute. Litigation should not be fragmented into several suits simply because a party omitted a relevant fact at the initial stage.

2. Amendments That Settle the Real Controversy: Adeniran v. Togunde.
In Adeniran v. Togunde (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 597) 781 at 794, the Court of Appeal strengthened this principle by holding that courts should grant amendments that seek to “settle in one package, the real controversy between the parties.”
This means that an amendment must serve the purpose of clarifying or resolving the substantive issues, rather than raising extraneous matters or introducing an entirely new framework of dispute.
The Court emphasized that granting such amendments reduces the burden on the judicial system by preventing the need for multiple lawsuits and helping parties achieve finality. Essentially, if the amendment moves the case closer to the true justice of the matter, it should be allowed.

3. Amendments Can Add or Substitute Causes of Action, If Based on the Same Facts
A more nuanced issue arises where an amendment seeks to introduce a new cause of action or alter an existing one. Ordinarily, such a request may appear prejudicial, but Nigerian courts have adopted a pragmatic approach.

In Folorunsho v. WAEC (2011) ALL FWLR (Pt. 556) 422 at 485, the Court of Appeal held that a court may grant an amendment that adds or substitutes a cause of action, provided that:
1. The new or additional cause of action arises from the same or substantially the same facts already pleaded, and
2. The opposing party will not suffer injustice that cannot be compensated by costs.
This decision aligns with the broader principle that litigation should not be decided based on drafting errors or poor articulation, but on the substance of the dispute. Once the factual foundation remains the same, introducing a related or refined cause of action is permissible.

4. When Courts Will Refuse Amendments
While courts are liberal, the discretion to grant amendments is not automatic. Amendments will generally be refused where:
□ They cause irreparable prejudice to the opposing party.
□ They introduce a cause of action that is statute-barred.
□ They are in bad faith, amounting to an abuse of process.
□ They would fundamentally alter the nature of the claim beyond what the original facts can support.
Thus, the right to amend is expansive, but not limitless.

5. The Underlying Judicial Policy: Substantive Justice Over Technicalities
■ The cases collectively show that Nigerian courts adopt a justice-oriented approach to amendments:
■ Courts prefer substance over form.
■ Technical mistakes should not defeat legitimate claims.
● The judicial system should encourage final and holistic resolution of disputes.
● Amendments promote fairness where they help clarify issues or prevent miscarriage of justice.
●The overall aim is to ensure that each case is decided based on its merits, not procedural missteps.

■ CONCLUSION
Amendments are central to the fair administration of justice in Nigerian civil procedure. The authorities show a consistent judicial commitment to ensuring that litigation addresses the real issues at stake rather than devolving into procedural gamesmanship. From Ojah v. Ogboni to Folorunsho v. WAEC, the courts continue to affirm that amendments should be granted when they help reveal the truth, settle the parties’ dispute in one coherent action, and do not unfairly prejudice the opponent.
In essence, the law on amendments reflects a deeper judicial philosophy: the court exists to do justice, not to trap parties in their own mistakes.