Trial Within Trial : Court Grants Sunday Andong And 2 Others To Amend Statement Of Arguments

Yakubu Busari

Honourable Justice Ishaku Kunda of Plateau State High Court, Jos Division has adjourned to the 25th Day of March, 2026 to enable the claimant /applicant’s counsel to move their motion dated 8th/match /2025 and filed on the 9th May, 2025.

In a suit NO, PLD /1362/2022, Mr. Yohanna Izam  Garba is challenging Sunday Andong and 2 others over the alleged sale of a house.

Justice Kunda, while delivering a landmark judgment on a trial within a trial, said that the defendant has the right to amend his statement of argument at any stage for proper proceedings.

He stated that in the interest of fair hearing, the Supreme Court judgment recently reaffirmed its position that the defendant has the sole right to make an amendment on the writ filed by the claimant’s counsel without any time.

While delivering the ruling, Justice Ishaku Kunda says, in a motion filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendants dated 25th Day of November, 2024, sought the leave of the court to amend their statement of arguments.

However, the grounds of the argument arise from the fact that the defendant has not been in the country as alleged, citing materials that were omitted that needed to be amended.

According to Justice Kunda, the motion was accompanied by a 18 paragraph affidavit and supported by a written address and deposit by the claimant himself, Mr Yohanna Izang Garba, saying that the claimant didn’t sell his property to anyone.

He said that the 1st and 2nd defendants told the court that they sought the order of the Honourable court for them to amend their position of arguments based on the ground that the claimant’s late Senior brother was acting as an agent responsible for the sale of the house.

Kunda stressed that the recent Supreme Court ruling said that an amendment should be allowed at any stage of the case, reaffirmed in a case Ojah vs ors, and Ogoni, where the court held that disallowing the defendants to amend is more of denying them their fundamental rights.

Adding that the position of the court is settled when the defendants introduce fresh issues that cannot be granted, and such prayers might cause injuries to the claimant, and the court would disallow that.

The court clarified that disallowing the defendants’ amended motion at this stage might inflict pain on the side of the defendants, so the court granted the prayers as prayed and ruled that the defendant must pay 20,000.00 damage to the claimant’s counsel within 7 days.

Mrs Valatine  Adese,Esq, commended the jurist for the ruling but told the court that she has a motion to move, which has been served on the parties.