“A statement of claim supersedes the writ.To supersede the writ, however, the statement of claim must state what is being claimed and not just claiming “as per the writ of summons.” It follows that to supersede the writ, the statement of claim must contain a claim or claims. Any claim in the writ not claimed in the statement of claim is taken to have been abandoned.”
In his judgment in Enigbokan v. A.I.I.CO. Ltd. (supra), Iguh, JSC, observed:
“It seems to me plain from the plaintiffs’ fourth amended statement of claim that the first relief he originally claimed as per his writ of summons was subsequently abandoned. This is because the law is settled that a statement of claim supersedes the writ and any relief claimed on the writ but not contained in the statement of claim will be deemed to have been abandoned.”
It is a general rule that a statement of claim supersedes the writ of summons and as such any claim or relief contained in the writ of summons, which is not repeated or reproduced in the statement of claim is deemed abandoned. This Court has in the case of Okomu Oil Palm Co Ltd. v. Iserhienrhien (supra) held that though a statement of claim, which does not contain reliefs claimed is incomplete, the said statement of claim is complete if it makes reference to the writ of summons for the reliefs it claims because the said writ of summons is thereby incorporated to the statement of claim by reference. I am of the firm view that the above statement is in accord with the current trend in the development of the law where substantial justice remains the focus of the law, not technicality.
Chief Ismaila Ehinle & 2ors v IKORODU LOCAL GOVERNMENT & 3 ors. SC. 382/2007 decided 8TH MAY 2020