The Court of Appeal held that the High Court was correct in declining to allow amendment of the Notice of Motion in judicial review proceedings to include new reliefs affecting parties not named at the time leave was sought. The judicial review procedure under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules is a two-stage process: first, leave is sought based on a statement of facts, and second, a motion is filed reflecting the reliefs for which leave was granted. The rules do not permit amendment of the motion itself to introduce new reliefs or affect non-parties, as this would violate the rules of natural justice and create incongruity between the leave application and the substantive motion. The omission in the rules to allow amendment of the motion is intentional, to prevent introduction of new reliefs at the hearing stage for which leave was neither sought nor granted. The appeal was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.