Justice Hannatu Balogun of the Kaduna State High Court on Monday ruled that nobody was misled when one of the parties in the case of Durbar hotel Plc Vs Kaduna State government was referred to as Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency (KASUPDA) instead of Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Authority (KASUPDA).
While delivering her ruling on the matter, she “It was a mistake in a name. Won’t every sane person say Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency (KASUPDA) is Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Authority (KASUPDA)?. The answer is Yes”.
The judge however, adjourned the case to July 5 2022 for hearing.
The Counsel to the State government Mr. S S. Umaru had in a previous Court sitting argued that, “We opposed the application because it was against a non existent party. The party the sued is Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency which is non existent party”
The Lead Counsel to Durbar hotel and a Senior Advocate of Nigeria ( SAN), Dr.Reuben Atabo said his clients had earlier filed a motion for amendment of the name.
Dr. Atabo who was represented by Mr. Samuel Katung (SAN) said in an interview that , “what transpired in Court today (Monday) is that we had earlier filed a motion to amend the name of Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency (KASUPDA). You will recall pursuant to the KASUPDA law of 2015, KASUPDA was known as Kaduna State Urban Planning and Development Agency (KASUPDA)”.
“However, there was an amendment to that law in 2018, and the name was changed to Kaduna State Urban Planning Development Authority (KASUPDA) instead of Agency.”
“But the Court said it was a common denominator in both laws, and that it has alias; alias KASUPDA in both laws.
“So we had inadvertently referred to it as an Agency instead of Authority, but our position was that that was a misnomer, nobody was misled. Both the 2015 and 2018 laws make reference to KASUPDA.”
“So we filed a motion to amend. Our motion was opposed by the defendants, and the Court in its wisdom delivered the procedural ruling today, holding our position.”
“The Judge posed so many questions whether anybody has been misled by the use of Agency instead of Authority.”
“The Judge said it was a clear case of misnomer especially within the peculiar circumstance of the case where parties have agreed for settlement. So nobody was misled. The amendment was granted.
“The Honourable judge granted the plaintiff leave to amend its claim from N1.2 billion to N11.5 billion
“The matter was adjourned to July 5, for hearing”.