By motion dated the 16th of June 2011, and filed on the 27th of June ...

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE GAMBIACIVIL SUIT NO: HC/131/11/MF/019/E1BETWEENSOCIETY AMAR TALIB MALI SARL(<strong>By</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir attorney HESHAM TURKY) ......................1 ST PLAINTIFFGENERAL PROCUREMENT SERVICES LTD (GPS).....2 ND PLAINTIFFANDSIDI MOHAMED O CHEIK ABDRAHMAD...............1 ST DEFENDANTEL MANARA SARL.................................................2 ND DEFENDANTZEIZANG CANAL FOOD CO. LTD...........................3 RD DEFENDANT(<strong>By</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir agent AHMED EL MEALY OULDMENANE)MONDAY 25 TH JULY <strong>2011</strong>BEFORE HON. JUSTICE KUMBA SILLAH-CAMARAPlaintiffs.....absentRespondent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Defendants.....presentM.S. Firdaus for <strong>the</strong> Plaintiffs....presentMrs. Sabally for <strong>the</strong> 1 st <strong>and</strong> 3 rd Defendants....absentRULING<strong>By</strong> <strong>motion</strong> <strong>dated</strong> <strong>the</strong> 16 th <strong>of</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2011</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>filed</strong> on <strong>the</strong> 27 th <strong>of</strong><strong>June</strong> <strong>2011</strong>, <strong>the</strong> applicants seek for <strong>the</strong> following orders:1. An order granting leave to <strong>the</strong> plaintiffs/applicants to filean amended statement <strong>of</strong> claim <strong>filed</strong> herein properly <strong>filed</strong><strong>and</strong> served as if leave to do so had been previouslygranted.1

2. An order deeming <strong>the</strong> amended statement <strong>of</strong> claim <strong>filed</strong>herein properly <strong>filed</strong> <strong>and</strong> served as if leave to do so hadbeen previously granted.3. An order granting leave to substitute all <strong>the</strong> translateddocuments <strong>filed</strong> in this suit with a better <strong>and</strong> moreaccurately translated set <strong>of</strong> documents. A set <strong>of</strong> which isherewith attached.4. An order deeming <strong>the</strong> substituted translated documents<strong>filed</strong> herein properly <strong>filed</strong> <strong>and</strong> served as if leave to do sohad been previously granted.5. An order granting leave to call additional witnesses in <strong>the</strong>supplementary list <strong>of</strong> witnesses <strong>filed</strong> herein.6. Such fur<strong>the</strong>r or o<strong>the</strong>r orders that this Honourable courtshall deem fit to make under <strong>the</strong> circumstances.Attached to <strong>the</strong> application is a 12 paragraph affidavit <strong>filed</strong> on<strong>the</strong> 27 th <strong>of</strong> <strong>June</strong> <strong>2011</strong>, <strong>and</strong> sworn to by HESHAM AL TURKY on<strong>the</strong> same date.In opposing <strong>the</strong> application <strong>the</strong> defendants/respondents <strong>filed</strong> a16 paragraph affidavit in opposition on <strong>the</strong> 4 th <strong>of</strong> July <strong>2011</strong>, <strong>and</strong>sworn to by SIDI MOHAMED O CHEIK ABDRAHMAN on <strong>the</strong>same date. The respondents also <strong>filed</strong> a 6 paragraph additionalaffidavit in opposition on <strong>the</strong> 12 th <strong>of</strong> July <strong>2011</strong>.The applicants also <strong>filed</strong> a 15 paragraph affidavit in response to<strong>the</strong> affidavit in opposition on <strong>the</strong> 8 th <strong>of</strong> July <strong>2011</strong>.2

The parties <strong>filed</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir arguments on <strong>the</strong> <strong>motion</strong> <strong>and</strong> aftercarefully going through same only three issues st<strong>and</strong> out fordetermination as follows:1. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> applicants should be granted leave to file<strong>the</strong>ir amended statement <strong>of</strong> claim <strong>and</strong> to deem itproperly <strong>filed</strong> <strong>and</strong> served?2. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> applicants should be granted leave tosubstitute <strong>the</strong> set <strong>of</strong> translated documents <strong>and</strong> to deem itproperly <strong>filed</strong> <strong>and</strong> served?3. Whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> applicants should be granted leave to calladditional witnesses?I will combine <strong>the</strong> issues <strong>and</strong> determine <strong>the</strong>m toge<strong>the</strong>r.ISSUES 1-3Order 24 rules 1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> High Court Rules provide <strong>the</strong>circumstances in which amendment can be granted as follows:The court may at any stage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proceedings, ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> is own<strong>motion</strong> or on <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r party, order anyproceedings to be amended, whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> defect or error be that <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> party applying to amend or not <strong>and</strong> such amendments as maybe necessary or proper for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> eliminating allstatements which may tend to prejudice, embarrass, or delay <strong>the</strong>fair trial <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suit, <strong>and</strong> for <strong>the</strong> purpose <strong>of</strong> determining in <strong>the</strong>existing suit <strong>the</strong> real questions or question in controversy between<strong>the</strong> parties, shall be so made on such terms as to costs oro<strong>the</strong>rwise as shall seem just.3

As has been stated above, amendment <strong>of</strong> pleadings may be allowedwhere its purpose is to determine <strong>the</strong> real question or issue between <strong>the</strong>parties. It would generally be allowed where:a. It would secure substantial justice see ADEKEYE V AKIN-OLUGBADE (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 60) 214 AT 223.b. It will settle <strong>the</strong> controversy between <strong>the</strong> parties <strong>and</strong> related issues;c. It will bring pleadings in line with evidence already adduced onrecord. See SPDC V AMBAH (1999) 2 SCNJ 152.On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r h<strong>and</strong>, amendment may be refused where:1. It would tend to prejudice, embarrass, or delay <strong>the</strong> fair trial <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>suit. See order 24 rule 1.2. It would present a completely different case, or cause injustice to<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r party or where <strong>the</strong> application for amendment is broughtmala fide. See IWEKA V SCOA (2000) 3 SCNJ 71.3. It would not cure <strong>the</strong> defects in <strong>the</strong> procedure sought to be curedor where it is inconsistent <strong>and</strong> useless.4. It would amount to over-reaching <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r party or an abuse <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> court process.In <strong>the</strong> instant case <strong>the</strong> respondents stated in <strong>the</strong>ir affidavits in paragraph11 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> affidavit in opposition that “<strong>the</strong> plaintiffs had initiated twolegal processes which I believe is an abuse <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> court’s process.”Whereas paragraph 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> affidavit in reply states that:Paragraph 11 is only true to <strong>the</strong> extent that <strong>the</strong>re are two legalprocesses...that <strong>the</strong> two processes are dealing with different <strong>and</strong>separate issues <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore it is not an abuse <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> courtprocess. That instead, it is <strong>the</strong> defendants that commenced <strong>the</strong>second legal process as directed by <strong>the</strong> Registrar General.4

These averments by <strong>the</strong> parties have been overtaken by events<strong>the</strong> second suit has been struck out <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>refore its issue is notrelevant.That in <strong>the</strong> instant case <strong>the</strong> 2 nd defendant was struck out, <strong>and</strong> asa consequence <strong>the</strong> applicant applied to amend <strong>the</strong> processes.This in my view is in <strong>the</strong> interest <strong>of</strong> justice. The applicantsshould be allowed to amend <strong>the</strong> processes so that it will be inline with <strong>the</strong> changes that had occurred. This will not prejudice<strong>the</strong> respondents because <strong>the</strong>y would be given an opportunityto amend.Moreover, a court can at any stage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proceedings amend<strong>the</strong> pleadings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> parties to an action in order to determine<strong>the</strong> real question in controversy. An amendment can beordered however careless or negligent <strong>the</strong> party might havebeen at asking for amendment if <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r party can beadequately compensated by <strong>the</strong> award <strong>of</strong> costs. See OKEOWOV MIGLIORE (1979) 11 SC 138In respect <strong>of</strong> leave to file additional statements <strong>and</strong> to bringdocuments properly translated, I will not hesitate to makereference to Order 23 rule 16 (5) & (6) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> High Court Rulesas amended referred to by counsel for <strong>the</strong> respondent whichprovides that:A person shall not be allowed to testify as a witness in <strong>the</strong> trial <strong>of</strong>a suit unless <strong>the</strong> affidavit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person’s statement or testimonyis <strong>filed</strong> toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> writ <strong>of</strong> summons or statement <strong>of</strong> defence,or has previously been <strong>filed</strong> <strong>and</strong> served on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r parties to <strong>the</strong>suit.5