Arab Contractors (O.A.O.) Nigeria Ltd. V. El-raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd. & Anor (2009)
LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report
ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.
This Appeal is against an interlocutory decision of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja delivered on the 22nd day of May, 2006 by Salisu Garba J.
The fact of the case briefly is that the Appellant entered into a retainership agreement with the Respondents for the medical treatment of the Appellant’s members of staff in the Respondent’s Hospital. During the course of their relationship, dispute arose between the parties as a result of which the Respondents instituted this action against the Appellant. The Respondents’ commenced their action by a Writ of Summons and Statement of claim, where they claim as follows:
“1. The sum of three million and thirty thousand Naira (N3,030,000.00) only being outstanding medical bills for medical services rendered to the Appellant’s staff in line with the medical retainership agreement between the Appellants and the 1st Respondent.
- The Respondents claim against the Appellant the sum of five million (N5,000,000.00) only as general damages for failure to pay to the Respondents the said medical bill and for slander, libel and damages to the Respondents reputation and competence in the medical field.”
The Appellant entered appearance and filed its Statement of defence. The Appellant later filed an application before the trial Court to strike out the suit on the ground that the Respondents were not competent to institute the matter. While the application was pending the Respondents applied to amend their writ of summons, the statement of claim and all other Court processes already filed by deleting the words “AND MATERNITY HOME” contained in the name of the 1st Respondent .The Respondent’s application was heard and granted. The Appellant not being satisfied with the Ruling of the trial Court appealed to this Court with a sole ground of Appeal.
One issue was distilled from the lone ground of Appeal. The issue distilled or formulated on behalf of the Appellant reads:
“Whether the lower Court rightly assumed jurisdiction to amend and/or change the 1st Respondent’s name from EL.RAPHAAL HOSPITALS AND MATERNITY HOME INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED to read EL-RAPHAEL HOSPITAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED.”
On behalf of the Respondents a lone issue was also formulated for determination in this Appeal as follows:
“Whether the lower Court was right in granting the Respondents’ application to amend the Respondent’s name and if so, whether the said amendment granted has introduced a stranger to the Appellant. ”
The issue as formulated by the Appellant is adopted for the determination of the Appeal.
In his argument on this issue, learned Counsel for the Appellant Richard S. Baiyeshea submitted that the lower Court wrongly and erroneously assumed jurisdiction to amend, alter and change the 1st Respondent’s name on the ground that the inclusion of the words AND MATERRNITY HOME on the 1st Respondent’s name is a misnomer.
He argued that the inclusion of the said words to the Respondent’s name is not a misnomer neither is it a mistake rather it is a deliberate and conscious act on the part of the Respondents as shown in the Respondents’ statement of claim, where paragraph 1 avers that the 1st Respondent is a “Company Limited by shares and carrys on business of Hospitals and Maternity in Abuja” and the letter headed paper of the 1st Respondent clearly and boldly shows the name of the 1st Respondent as EL-RAPHAAL HOSPITALS AND MATERNITY HOME INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. Learned Counsel contended that the 1st Respondent used the said name when he applied for medical retainership with the Appellant and all correspondences between Respondent and Appellant are in this unregistered name.
He maintained that the name registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission is EL-RAPHAAL HOSPITAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. while ELRAPHAAL HOSPITALS AND MATERNITY HOME INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. is a creation of the Respondent and therefore remains a non juristic personality.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the power of the Court to correct or amend cannot be used to bring into being what does not exist, and that no amount of amendment or correction as done by the lower Court in this matter can bring a non juristic company into existence or cloak the 1st Respondent with a juristic personality. He referred the Court to the cases of: Akas v. Manager & Receiver of Estate Allwadike (2004) FWLR Pt.71 Page 1714 at Pages 1726-1727; Nigerian Nurses Association v. A.G. Federation (1981) I FNLR 55 at 60.
Learned Counsel further argued that it was erroneous of the lower Court to have carried out the amendment and changing of the 1st Respondent’s name. He contended that it is tantamount to clothing and/or giving the status of a corporate body or legal entity to the 1st Respondent. He submitted that it was erroneous of the lower Court to do so as an unregistered company such as the 1st Respondent, cannot confer the status of a corporate body on itself and the Court cannot accord the 1st Respondent such corporate status. He referred the Court to the case of Registered Trustees, P.A.W.I.V. Registered Trustees A.P.C.C. (2003) FWLR Pt. 150 Page 1801 at 1815 – 1816.
Learned Counsel argued that the lower Court having become aware of the unregistered Status of the 1st Respondent should not have proceeded to erroneously assume jurisdiction to amend and/or change the 1st Respondent’s name by deleting the words AND MATERNITY HOME from the 1st Respondent’s name thereby introducing and foisting a different company and a complete stranger i.e. ELRAPHAAL HOSPITALS INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. on the Appellant at the lower Court. He referred the Court to the ease Of Aruba v. Aiyeleru (1993) 3 NWLR Pt. 280 Page 126 at 142.
Learned Counsel submitted that where a Company such as the 1st Respondent in this matter is not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission, as a non juristic person, it lacks the legal capacity to institute the action at the lower Court as it is an incompetent party and the 2nd Respondent being an employee of the 1st Respondent is a complete stranger to the Appellant, and is also an incompetent party, therefore both Respondents are incompetent to institute the action at the lower Court against the Appellant and the entire suit is incompetent. He maintained that the lower Court should have struck out the suit as the suit was commenced by incompetent parties such as the Respondents at the lower Court. He referred the Court to the cases of:
Maersk Line v. Addide Investment Ltd. (2002) FWLR Pt. 125 Page 615 at 655;
Obike Int’l Ltd. v. Ayi Electronic Services Ltd. (2005) ALL FWLR Pt. 256 Page 1369 at 1378.
In reply to the submissions of the Appellant, learned Counsel for the Respondents Samuel Zibiri Esq. argued that the submission of the Appellant’s Counsel that the Appellant never transacted business with “EL-Raphaal Hospital Investment Company Ltd,” cannot hold water. He maintained that from the search conducted by the Appellant’s Counsel contained in pages 22-23 of the Record of proceedings, it contains the name of the 1st Respondent as the Company, and the Directors of the Company are two (which names have the 2nd Respondent as one of the Directors). He argued that the object of the company is in line with the services rendered by the 1st Respondent to the Appellant. Learned Counsel contended that the Appellant is using technicality to defeat the cause of justice in this case, in view of the fact that they have enjoyed the services of the 1st Respondent.
Learned Counsel maintained that the Appellant had filed its Statement of defence in which it averred that the 1st Respondent has been giving them higher fees and that the 1st Respondent connived with some staff of the Appellant in over charging the Appellant.
He argued that the application for the amendment filed by the Respondents was to correct the misnomer in the name of the 1st Respondent by using the name “EL-Raphaal Hospital And Maternity Home Investment Company Limited” with the addition of the words ‘And Maternity Home’ instead of EL-Raphaal Hospital Investment Company Limited” as contained on the certificate of incorporation.
Learned Counsel maintained that the company has been in existence since 1987, when it was registered. He referred the Court to the cases of:
Obike Int’l Ltd. v. Ayi Electronic Services Ltd. (2005)15 NWLR Pt. 948 page 362 at 374;
Maersk Line v. Addide Investment Ltd. (supra) at 608;
Adewumi v. A.G. Ekiti State (2002) FWLR Pt. 92 Pages 1835 at 1861;
Vulcan Gases Ltd. v. G.F.I.G. (2001) FWLR 1 at 42.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent maintained that the Appellant is not saying there was never any relationship that existed between itself and the 1st Respondent.
He argued that the learned trial Judge at page 107 of the Record of Proceedings did not say that the 1st Respondent is a juristic person that can sue or be sued. He submitted that the case of Registered Trustees, P.A.W.I. v. Registered Trustees A.P.C.C. (supra) relied upon by the Appellant’s Counsel in their brief is not applicable in the instant case. He argued that in the instant case the Respondents applied for leave of Court to amend the name of the 1st Respondent, which application was granted by the lower Court. In the case of the Registered Trustees, P.A.W.I. v. Registered Trustees A.P.C.C. there was no application by the Respondent for the amendment of the name of the Appellant, while in the instant case the Respondents applied for an Order of Court to correct a misnomer in the name of the 1st Respondent.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that even where the Court is of the opinion that the Ist Respondent is not registered under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, the action is still maintainable against the Appellant in view of the provision of Order 10 rule 10(1) of the FCT High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004. He maintained that the 2nd Respondent is the signatory to all the correspondence between the Appellant and the 1st Respondent. The 2nd Respondent is a Director in EL-Raphaal Hospital Investment Company Ltd. as shown from the search report conducted by the Appellant’s Counsel.
Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the amendment sought for and granted by the lower Court was in the interest of justice and that since no evidence has been given in this case, the Appellant will not be prejudiced by the grant of the amendment done by the lower Court.
In his reply on point of law to the submissions of the Respondents, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the 1st Respondent not being duly registered as a partnership/business/company cannot maintain an action before Courts in Nigeria and Rules of Court cannot confer legal personality on it.
He submitted that it is trite Jaw that it is only a company that can maintain an action to redress a wrong against it in its name. He cited the cases of:
Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 2 Ha 461;
Tanimola v. Survey and Mapping Geodata Ltd. (1995) 6 NWLR pt. 403 page 617.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that it is not a mistake as stated before the Court below but a deliberate act of the Respondents to carry on business without due registration under the Companies and Allied Matters Act. The Plaintiffs/Respondents described its business and that of the Defendant/Appellant and the Relationship between them in the Statement of claim on pages 6-9 of the Record of Proceedings thus:
“1. The First Plaintiff is and was at all times material to this suit a Company Limited by shares and carry on the business of Hospitals and Maternity in Ahuja.
- The Second Plaintiff is a medical Doctor and the Medical Director of the First Plaintiff.
- The First Defendant is a construction firm carrying on construction work in Ahuja with the Second Defendant as its General Manager.
- The Plaintiffs contend that by the Defendants’ letter of 17th June 1997, the Plaintiffs were awarded medical Retainenship to render medical services to the Defendants workers medical care. The Plaintiff pleads and will at the hearing of this case rely on the said letter of award.
- That consequent upon the Plaintiffs’ appointment, the Plaintiffs at the Defendants request forwarded to the Defendants vide their letter of May 22, 1997, the price list and their respective illness and the Defendants accepted. The Plaintiff plead and will at the hearing of this rely on the said letter of May 22nd, 1997 and notice is hereby given to the Defendants to produce the originals at the hearing of this case.
- That in consequence of the Retainership, the Plaintiffs had at different times treated the Defendants’ workers referred to them and has, as is customary and as agreed, forwarded its bills to the Defendant.The Plaintiffs plead and will at the hearing of this case rely on some of the bills forwarded to the Defendants in consequence thereof and will at the hearing of this case rely on the respective bills forwarded and NOTICE is hereby given to the Defendant to produce the originals of the said bills at the hearing of this case. ”
The Defendant/Appellant admitted these facts in paragraphs 1, 2, 4 & 5 of its Statement of defence on pages 14-16 of the Record of Proceedings.
“1. The Defendants admit paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Plaintiff’s statement of claim.
- The Defendants admit paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Plaintiffs statement of claim only to the extent that while the medical retainership lasted the Plaintiffs were charging and sending medical bills in excess of the price list earlier sent to the Defendants.
- Sequel to paragraph 3 above the Defendants state that between the period of 1999 and 2000 the Plaintiffs issued various over-bloated medical bills for authorized medical services, also for unauthorized medical services rendered to Defendant staff.
The Defendants plead the Plaintiffs’ several medical bills showing duplication of medical treatment and bills and shall rely on same at trial.
- The Defendants aver that consequent upon the consistent Plaintiff’s practice of sending over bloated medical bills to the Defendant, the Defendant were made to mistakenly pay huge monthly sums of money to the Plaintiffs as payments for medical bills.”
The letter of award by the Appellant to the 1st Respondent for medical retainership is reproduced thus:
“ARAB CONTRACTORS O.A.O. Nig. Ltd
Stallion House, 6th Floor, 2Ajose Adeogun Sttreet,
Victoria Island, Lagos, P.O. Box 50593, Ikoyi, Nigeria.
The chief Medical Director
EI-Raphaal Hospitals & Maternity Block 14,
Koforidua Street, Wuse-Abuja
17th June, 1997
Dear Sir,
LETTER OF AWARD FOR MEDICAL RETAINERSHIP
Reference to your application and quotation of 22nd May, 1997 in respect of Workers Medical Care for our Company, we are pleased to inform you that the Retainership Contract for medical service to our Company has been awarded to you as per the price list submitted
Method of payment will be on a monthly basis and only Junior and Senior Staff that come with approved Medical Attention (copy attached) duly signed by the Project manager or his nominees are to be treated.
In the event of a worker/staff with a case not quoted for or included in the price list, such case(s) should be confirmed from Management before proceeding with the treatment, except the emergency cases for which you are requested to apply first aid until final confirmation is given.
While we congratulate you, we expect the best medical services.
Yours faithfully,
ARAB CONTRACTORS O.A..D. NIG. LTD.
(SGD)
ENGR. HATEM BANOUNNA
PROJECT MANAGER”
It is clear from the letter of award that the offer made by the Appellant was to EL-Raphaal Hospitals & Maternity of Block 14 Koforidua Street, Wuse – Abuja.
When the dispute between the parties arose the Respondents instituted the action which is the subject of this Appeal in the name “EL Raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Company Limited.”
A search carried out at the Corporate Affairs Commission revealed that there is no company registered with the name EL-Raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Company Limited but that there is a company registered as EL-Raphaal Hospital Investment Company Limited. The difference between them is the addition of Maternity Home’.
It is trite that a person who is made a party to an action either as a Plaintiff or as a Defendant must be a legal person or if not, a body vested by Law with power to sue or be sued. See Agbonmagbe Bank Ltd. v. General Manger. G. B. Ollivant Ltd & Anor. (1961) All NLR 116.
A company is often described as a corporate person that can sue and be sued.
It is a legal fiction that exists only in the eyes of the law. A company has no eyes or brains of its own. It acts through biological or natural persons such as Directors and Shareholders whose actions are binding on it. See Ladejobi v. Odutola Holdings Ltd. (2002) 3 NWLR Pt. 753 page 121.
Where there is a mistake as to the name of a party to litigation, such a mistake is described as misnomer. A misnomer simply means a wrong use of name.
It is a mistake as to the name and not a mistake as to the identity of the party to the litigation.In case of a misnomer, an application can be made to amend the Writ to substitute a juristic person for a non-juristic person but the Plaintiff seeking the amendment has a duty to show there were reasonable grounds of excuse in his use of the wrong name or in naming the Defendant wrongly. See Maersk Line v. Addide Investment Ltd. (2002) II NWLR Pt. 778 Page 317 at 377.
The Court has the power to amend the title of an action to show the correct name of the party sued if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that it was a case of a misnomer.
The existence of the power of the Court to grant an amendment in a case of a misnomer has been acknowledged in a plethora of cases. See Njemanze v. Shell B. P. Port Harcourt (1966) Vol. 4 NSCC 6.
In Maersk Line v. Addide Investment Ltd. (supra) at Pages 377-378, the Supreme Court said:
“An amendment is often readily granted where what is involved is a mere misnomer. See Olu of Warri & ors. v. Esi & Anor. (1958) Vol. 1 NSCC; (1958) SCNLR where the Court said:
‘The cases, Establishment Baudelot v. R. S. Graham & Co. Ltd (1953) 1 ALL ER 149 and Alexander Mountain & Co. v. Rumere Ltd. (1948) 2 All ER 483 ….. are authorities to show that in a case of misnomer, if application is made to amend the writ by substituting the proper names it should be granted.”
Where the description of a party to litigation on the writ was a mere misnomer, such could be put right by amendment, provided that the person misnamed and intended to be sued is a juristic entity and is in existence. See A. B. Manu & Co. (Nig.) Ltd. v. Costain (W.A) Ltd. (1994) 7 NWLR Pt. 367 Page 112.
The essence of an amendment is to ensure that justice is done to all parties to the dispute.
In the case of Vulcan Gases Ltd. v. G. F. Industries A. G. (2001) 9 NWLR PT. 719 Page 610 at 653, the Supreme Court held:
“Where an irregularity could be cured without causing any injustice to the adverse party, taking into consideration the stage of the proceedings at the time and its nature, an amendment would be granted to cure same.”
It is a cardinal duty of the Courts to ensure at all times that substantial justice is accorded to all parties to disputes before it. In Adewunmi v. Attorney-General Ekiti State (2002) 2 NWLR Pt. 751 Page 474 at 507 thus:
“In civil litigation, it is the duty of the Court to aim at,. and to do, substantial justice and allow formal amendments as are necessary for ultimate achievement of justice and the end of litigation. While recognizing that rules of Court should also be observed and followed, it should also be emphasized that justice is not a fencing game in which parties engage each other in a whirling of technicalities (Afolabi v. Adekunbe (J983) 2 SCNLR 141 referred to).”
The discretionary power of the Court to grant an amendment to correct the name of a party would be exercised even if doing so will have the effect of substituting a new party provided the Court is satisfied that the mistake sought to be corrected is a genuine one and not misleading. See Shokunbi v. Mosaku (1969) 1 NMLR 54; Vulcan Gases v. G. F. Industries A. G. (supra) at page 653.
The Court can also allow a Plaintiff to amend his writ even after final judgment in the proceedings has been entered for the purpose of substituting a party’s correct name for the incorrect name. See Vulcan Gases v. G. F. Industries A. G. (supra) at page 661.
In the present case, the Plaintiffs/Respondents applied to amend both the Writ of Summons and the Statement of claim so as to rectify the mistake by stating the correct name by which the Company was registered at the Corporate Affairs Commission. The application was filed after the Defendant/Appellant had filed its Statement of defence and before evidence was taken in the matter.
It was deposed on behalf of the 1st Plaintiff/1st Respondent in paragraph 4 of the affidavit in support of the application at page 34 of the Record of Appeal the reasons for the mistake in stating its correct name thus:
“4. That I was informed by Samuel Zibiri, Esq., of Counsel to the Plaintiff/Applicant of the following facts in our Area 3 office on the 27th day of September, 2005 at about 3:30p.m. and I verily believe him as follows:
a. That by the application dated 15th July, 2005 filed by the defence counsel and is only it was discovered that the name on the writ and other processes of court filed bore EL-Raphaal Hospitals and Maternity Home Investment Company Limited instead of EL-Raphaal Hospitals Investment Company.
h. That the error was occasioned by a mistake and is only a misnomer.
c. That though the Plaintiffs name was mis-described, the Defendant knew that, it is the Plaintiff that is so
described as they have been so described even in the past communication/correspondences between parties.
Annexed herewith are some copies of their past correspondences marked as Exhibit A-C
d. That the Defendant having accepted service in the first place, only goes to show that they knew the 1st Plaintiff.
e. That the Defendant knows that, EL-Raphaal Hospitals and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd. on the writ and other court processes meant EL-Raphaal Hospitals Investment Co. Limited.
f. That the mistake in the name of the 1st Plaintiff is only a misnomer.
g. That the correct name is EL-Raphaal Hospitals lnvestment Company Limited. The certificate of incorporation is herewith attached and marked as Exhibit “CD”.
h. That the Defendant will in no way be prejudiced by the amendment as the amendments will assist in the proper identification of the 1st Plaintiff and a just determination of the case.”
The Defendant/Appellant filed a Counter-affidavit. Paragraph 3 is pertinent:
“3. That I was informed by Richard S. Balyesheo Esq., Counsel to the Defendant/Respondent of the following facts in our above office on the 2nd day of November, 2005 at about 12 noon and I verily well believe him to be true as follows:
a. That the name of the 1st Plaintiff on the Writ of Summons and other Court processes is the name introduced, presented and represented to the Defendant vide their letters, letter headed papers, prices list and material documents as EL-Raphaal Hospitals and Maternity Home investment Co. Ltd. Copies of the said letters are herewith attached as Exhibits 1,2,3,4.
b. That it is with EI-Raphaal Hospitals and Maternity Home investment Co. Ltd. that the Defendant had medical retainership with.
c. That the Defendant does not know nor have any business or medical retainership with any EL-Raphaal Hospital Investment Co. Ltd. and it is a total stranger to the Defendant.
d. That the use of the Plaintiff’s name as EL-Raphaal Hospitals and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd. is not an error nor a mistake as claimed by the Plaintiff, it is not a misnomer either, but a fundamental incompetence affecting the jurisdiction of the Court, as the 1st Plaintiff has derived tremendous business advantages through the deliberate use of its name at the detriment of the Defendant.
e. That El-Raphaal Hospitals and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd. is not the same thing as and/or with El-Raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd., as the word AND MATERNITY HOME constitutes substantial difference to the name sought to be substituted.
f. That the correction sought to be made to El-Raphaal Hospital Investment Co. Ltd. if granted will foist a total stranger on the Defendant, as the Defendant has never had any business or medical relationship with the first Plaintiff, sought to he substituted.
g. That the Defendant accepted service of court process in the 1st Plaintiff name (i.e. EI.Raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd.) believing it to be a duly registered limited company but upon search at the Corporate Affairs Commission, discovered that the Plaintiff is not registered.
h. That there is no nexus between the Defendant and El- Raphaal Hospital Investment Co. Ltd., what the Defendant knows and have dealing with is El-Raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd.
i. That the Defendant will be seriously prejudiced by the grant of Plaintiffs’ application as it will foist and/or thrust a complete stranger on the Defendant.
J. That this application is an after-thought, mischievous, frivolous, and an abuse of the processes of this Court and should he struck out of the Court’s list”
The learned trial Judge gave his Ruling on Pages 70-74 of the Record of Appeal. At page 73, he said thus:
“I have considered the submission a/the learned Counsel on both sides in this matter and wish to refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of New Nigeria Bank Ltd. v. Matthew Bazvau (1998) 11 NWLR Pg. 645 where the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of a registered company suing or sued and the effect of making any additional words in the name of the company.
In that case it was held inter alia that”-
‘A company being a legal person may sue or be sued.
However, the action must be in the name by which the company is registered.’
In the instant case, the addition of the words “Headquarters, Benin City” after the Appellant’s name “New Nigeria Bank Limited” is unnecessary description or misnomer which cannot defeat or vitiate the action. Applying the principle of law decided by the Court of Appeal in that case, I am inclined to agree with the submission of learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/hat the issue in respect of the name of the1st Plaintiff is a misnomer which this Court is empowered to correct by virtue of the provision of Order 24 of the Rules of this Court 2004. In addition to that I do not see how this amendment will prejudice the Defendant and the learned Counsel for the Defendant didn’t Slate as to how the amendment will prejudice his client. In the circumstances, the application of the r’ Plaintiff to correct its name by deleting the words “And Maternity Home” in all the court processes in the matter is hereby granted in the interest a justice and they are deemed to be properly filed and served.”
In the instant case the Defendant/Appellant is not denying having a relationship with a medical outfit or hospital with the name EL-Raphaal Hospitals.
Its contention is that the correct name EI-Raphaal Hospital and Maternity Home Investment Co. Ltd. is not registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission which is the body that confers on Companies registered by it corporate personality or image to sue for its right and to be sued when it infringes on the right of other persons, natural or corporate.
The registered office of the name sought to be amended as well as that of the name registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission is the same. The 2nd Respondent, the Chief Medical Director of the 1st Respondent is also one of the Directors of the 1st Respondent Company.
In the instant case, the 1st Respondent has transacted with the Appellant through the 2nd Respondent who is the Medical Director and one of the directors of the 1st Respondent as can be seen from the correspondence on pages 51,52,53,54,58,59,60,61 and 62 of the Record of Proceedings. Hence, the Appellant cannot claim ignorance of the existence of the 1st Respondent after having enjoyed its services.
Also, as argued by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the 1st Respondent has been known by the name El-Raphaal Hospitals Investment Ltd. since 1987.
I am of the opinion that the lower Court was right in granting the 1st Respondent the amendment to correct the mistake in stating the correct name it was baptized with by the Corporate Affairs Commission a name by which it is known by the world at large and by which it must answer if called or invited by the Court.
Moreso, the Appellant is in no way prejudiced by the amendment as no evidence has been led in the matter at the trial Court. See:Obike International Ltd. v. Ayi Electronics Ltd. (2005) 15 NWLR Pt. 948 Page 362 at 374.
Other Citations: (2009)LCN/3087(CA)
