…Grants Him Leave To Amend Claims
THE NYANYA Judicial Division of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has awarded costs of N200,000 against former President of Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Comrade Ayuba Wabba, in favour of Contest Communications Ltd, publishers of Abuja-based online newspaper, National Record, and its Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief, Comrade Iduh L. Onah.
The court ordered the award in a ruling following the granting of Wabba’s application to amend his claims in an ongoing libel countersuit.
In the ruling delivered by the Honourable Justice Babangida Hassan, the court held that while Wabba was entitled to amend his pleadings in the interest of justice, the respondents should be compensated with costs for the inconvenience occasioned by his application.
Wabba’s application arose from a motion he filed seeking leave of court to amend his writ of summons and statement of claim, as well as his reply to the defendants’ joint statement of defence and defence to the counterclaim.
In opposing Wabba’s application, counsel to Contest Communications Ltd and Onah (the respondents/claimants), Peter Okpenge Esq., mounted a vigorous challenge, arguing that the amendment sought by the Comrade Wabba should not be allowed because it was coming after considerable delay after reading defence response to his claims, noting that it would effectively reward a litigant who had not acted diligently in prosecuting his case.
Barr. Okpenge contended that the applicant was guilty of tardiness and should not benefit from the court’s discretionary powers.
Okpenge argued a party who has serially delayed in taking necessary procedural steps in the suit should not be granted indulgence as a matter of course.
He further argued that amendments are not permitted where they fundamentally alter the nature of a party’s case or seek to overreach the opposing side.
The defence maintained that the court must guard against any amendment capable of changing the character of the litigation in a manner that could prejudice the respondents or confer an unfair procedural advantage on the claimant.
Okpenge also submitted that the proposed amendments lacked a proper evidential foundation, arguing that portions of the claimant’s supporting affidavit relied on information allegedly obtained from unnamed persons and therefore amounted to hearsay. On that basis, he urged the court to discount the affected paragraphs and refuse the application.
Another plank of the defence argument was that the court should consider the conduct of the applicant throughout the proceedings. Okpenge pointed to the history of the case and argued that the claimant’s delay and litigation conduct weighed against the exercise of the court’s discretion in his favour.
Okpenge further maintained that judicial discretion must be exercised to prevent injustice to the defence, noting that where an amendment threatens to alter the existing framework of the dispute or causes avoidable prejudice, the proper course is for the court to refuse the request.
After examining the competing submissions and reviewed the principles governing amendments of pleadings, Justice Hassan noted that the primary consideration in such applications is whether granting the amendment would serve the interests of justice and enable the real issues in controversy between the parties to be determined.
Justice Hassan observed that amendments are generally permitted where they assist the court in resolving the substantive dispute and where hearing on the merits has not substantially progressed. He also emphasised that parties should ordinarily be accorded an opportunity to present all relevant facts necessary for the just determination of their case.
While acknowledging the concerns of the defence, the court held that refusing the amendment at that stage of the proceedings could effectively shut the applicant out from fully ventilating his case. The judge stated that justice and fair hearing require that parties be allowed to present their cases completely, provided that the amendment does not occasion irremediable prejudice.
Justice Hassan nevertheless agreed with the defence on one important point: that any inconvenience or prejudice suffered by the respondents could be adequately compensated through an award of costs. The court therefore concluded that the appropriate balance was to grant the amendment while awarding costs against the applicant.
Consequently, the court resolved the issue partly in favour of the applicant, granted leave to amend the pleadings, and ordered the payment of N200,000 costs to the respondents, and adjourned the matter to July 16, 2026 for hearing.
Flashback
This makes it the second time the court would be awarding cost against Wabba in the case that he had filed on March 3, 2022 but failed to diligently prosecute.
On Tuesday, November 25, 2025, the court awarded costs against Wabba, for undue delay and a lack of diligent prosecution.
Justice Hassan had imposed the costs following an oral application for cost in the sum of N250,000 against the claimant/respondent by Barr. Okpenge.
After hearing arguments from counsel for both parties, Justice Hassan, while agreeing in principle with awarding costs, however granted the sum of N20,000.
RELATED STORIES:
Alleged Libel: Court Awards Cost Against Ex-NLC Boss Wabba For Lack Of Diligent Prosecution
Hearing In NLC, Wabba, Ugboaja Vs National Record Suit Slated For Nov. 25
National Record Counter Claims N100m Against NLC, Asks Court to Join Ugboaja in Wabba’s Libel Suit
