EZE v. ENE & ANOR

Paragraph 13 of the Statement of Claim states the plaintiff’s claim. It reads:
13. WHEREOF the plaintiff claims against the defendants jointly and severally as follows:-
(a) Declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the Customary Right of Occupancy to the land in Dispute.
(b) N1,000.00 (One thousand naira) damages for trespass.
(c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents and privies from further entering the land without the consent of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff relied on their statement of claim filed on 30th May, 1983.
Trial commenced at one time or the other before the judges who were unable to hear the case to the end. Finally trial commenced on 4th February, 1991 before the Hon. Justice P.K. Nwokedi (CJ Anambra State as he then was). Three witnesses were called by the plaintiff in proof of their case.
On 15th February, 1991, the defendants opened their defence, relying on their statement of defence, filed on 9th September, 1983. The defendants called four witnesses and on 18th February, 1991 after DW4 concluded his evidence, filed an application to amend their statement of defence. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The learned Chief Judge heard argument and ruled as follows;
“Court- Objection is overruled. I shall give reasons in my judgment. Amendments are hereby granted as prayed.”
Four documents were admitted in evidence as exhibits. They are;
1. Exhibit 1- Certified copy of records of proceedings in suit No. E/113/77
2. Exhibit 2- Plan No. MEC/12/18/78
3. Exhibit 3- Judgment in Criminal case
4. Exhibit 4- Plan No. MLS/2311/83.
The learned Chief Judge delivered judgment on 21st March, 1991 dismissing the plaintiff’s claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal. It was heard by the Enugu Division of the Court of Appeal. That Court dismissed the appeal. On a further and final appeal to this Court and in accordance with Rules of Court, both sides filed briefs of argument. The appellant’s brief was filed on 17th May, 2012 but was deemed duly filed and served on 1st November 2016. The respondents’ brief was filed on 3rd November, 2016. Learned counsel for the appellant’s Mr. T. Maduka formulated two issues from his amended notice of Appeal. They are:
ISSUE 1
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law in upholding the decision of the High Court granting a fundamental amendment to the statement of Defence after the close of the cases for the parties and whether same resulted in a denial of fair hearing to the appellant.
ISSUE 2
Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in law in affirming the trial judge’s rejection of Exhibit 1.
Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. A. Ejesieme also formulated two issues for determination of this appeal; They read:
ISSUE 1
Whether the Court below was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court which allowed the amendment sought by the respondents.
ISSUE 2
Whether the Court below was right in affirming the decision of the trial Court in the rejection of Exhibit 1.

Both sets of issues ask the same question, so the issues formulated by the appellant would be considered in resolving this appeal.
At the hearing of the appeal on 13 December, both sides adopted their briefs. Learned counsel for the appellant urged us to allow the appeal, while learned counsel for the respondents urged the opposite.
ISSUE 1
Whether the learned Justice of the Court of Appeal were right in law in upholding the decision of the High Court granting a fundamental amendment to the statement of defence after the close of the cases for the parties; and whether same resulted in a denial of fair hearing to the appellant?

…………………….B…………………….