c) That the Court after hearing decides or reserves the decision for the final judgment; d) That the substance of the application touches the substantive case. 41. It is trite law that the provision above is interlocutory purpose of the preservation and meant for the of the substantive matter or Res. The Court cannot rule out the fact that by the above provision, it was therefore in order to make an order to ensure that the final decision on the substantive matter or the Res is preserved to the end of the trial. 42. An interlocutory action should not be allowed when same is subsumed with the facts of the substantive Consequently case and that is trite position of law. in the instant case, the application semblance of an amendment evidence introduced which may have the would be granted and it is granted. The therein shall be considered in this judgment by the application of Article 87(5) of the Rules of procedure of this Court which shall resolve the whole case in its entirety one way or the other in the For emphasis, Article 87(5) of the Rules provides that "the Judgment. Court shall after hearing the parties decide on the application the decision for the final judgment. or reserve If the Court refuses the application or reserves its decision, the President shall prescribe new time limits for the further steps in the proceedings." 43. Learned Counsel for the defendant also relied on the case of Azazi v. Adhekegba, supra, that they would be precluded from properly joining t!h2.~t j ~:'~ s":l!~2c.s~: d~\~V~:'~;~1~1(~~_.,DI:.. '"L110);:ll\~S. ll~a~ill~l t~if~'f, ....2o:.!n2 .J1tl2.;i(;:5'S~E:' __:~12~.QLLiltIilill,E;ci:,~A .•_1.~lCl:S_..J.1L_tLlc----,-,--" Learned Counsel furthermore based his argument • on the doctrine of laches as observed in the case of Chukwu v. Amadi, supra, that there was unreasonable delay or that the plaintiff was negligent in bringing his claim. The Court found no such inordinate delay to seek for 15 -- --~-