Before the High Court of Oyo State in suit No. 1/57/84, this action was commenced by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants wherein they claimed thus:-

The particulars of damage pleaded also are as follows:-

"By 1st Plaintiff

By the 2nd Plaintiff for himself and Mulikatu Raji family Cost of kolanut, cocoa trees etc, destroyed on 2 plots N2,000.00

Following the order that pleadings be filed and exchanged, the parties duly complied. At the trial, both parties called evidence in support of their respective case. The learned trial Judge thereafter delivered a considered judgment. By the said judgment, the learned trial Judge found in favour of the Plaintiffs that they were in possession of the disputed land. He however dismissed their claim in respect of special damages as no evidence was led in support of that head of claim. But he held that the Plaintiffs were entitled to general damages for the trespass committed on the disputed land. The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs were therefore awarded the sum of N500.00 each.

However, in view of what will later be considered by the Court below when hearing the appeal, it is desirable to note that during the trial in the course of his closing address, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs sought leave to amend his pleadings. The record of that part of the proceedings read thus:-

"At this stage, Agbaje applies to amend the title of the action in relation to the 1st Plaintiff by adding "for herself and on behalf of the Oyinade section of Raji Adewale family"

Sarumi opposes the application, says it is too late in the day as there is no evidence to support the amendment. There is no evidence that the action was brought on behalf of a particular section.

Court: Although no evidence is shown to have been led by the Plaintiffs in respect of the sections on behalf of whom the action is brought, I do not see any injustice to the defence case in granting the amendment sought, if it is possible that without such amendment alone the Plaintiffs' case could be defective. All amendments permissible are those aimed at assisting the Court in determining the real questions in controversy without at the same time working injustice on the other party. I shall grant the amendment sought as prayed with N40 as costs in favour of the Defendants."

Being dissatisfied with the judgment and orders of the trial Court, they appealed to the Court below. In that Court, parties in accordance with the rules of that Court then filed and exchanged their respective briefs of arguments. It is significant to note that in the briefs so filed by the parties, the question as to whether the amendment of the pleadings of the Plaintiffs was properly granted by the learned trial Judge was raised in the briefs filed by the parties before the Court below.

After consideration of the effect of the amendment granted by the trial Court, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

Both parties being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the Court of Appeal, appealed to the Supreme Court, While the Defendant/Appellant appealed, the Plaintiffs/Respondents cross-appealed.

The Appellant filed an Appellant's brief and a reply brief in response to the Respondent's cross-appeal, while the Respondent included a response to the Appellant brief and the argument in support of the cross-appeal.