Search court decisions

…The joinder of the 2nd Defendant in his personal capacity is therefore misconceived, improper, and amounts to a misjoinder of parties.…

…The joinder of his name in this suit in his personal capacity is therefore improper, prejudicial, and amounts to a misjoinder of parties.…

…The suit is not a representative suit since they did not make an application to make it a representative suit under the Civil Procedure Rules. 6.2: The second issue is whether the suit is defective on grounds of misjoinder…

…of parties and if so to what extend.…

…Finally, on the issue of joinder and/or misjoinder of parties, the Interested Parties contended that the reliefs sought in the application are directed at the Defendant’s conduct as trustee and registered proprietor.…

…Further, they submitted that non-joinder or misjoinder of parties is not a pure point of law capable of determination through a Preliminary Objection but that it required a Court to determine whether a party is necessary,…

…The Applicant further invokes Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules regarding the misjoinder of parties.…

…It further asserted that some of the health services were devolved to the County Government and that misjoinder of parties could not affect the substratum of the suit.…

…It asserted that the joinder or misjoinder of a party did not affect the substratum of the suit, and she invoked Order 1 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which states that no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder…

…The Respondent deponed that in the event that the court holds that there was a misjoinder of parties, the same does not render her defence and counter-claim fatally defective under Order 1, Rule 9 & 10 of the Civil Procedure…

…I find that there is no misjoinder of parties as the Plaintiff had paid the transfer fees and this is not disputed and it was upto the Defendant to transfer the suit property directly to the Defendant.…

…The law is settled that non-joinder or misjoinder of parties does not defeat a suit, and that in every case, the court would determine a suit as concerns only the parties before it.…

…The Applicants have maintained that no misjoinder of parties exists here and that the Respondent is a proper defendant to the suit.…

…The Plaintiffs averred that the counterclaim was also bad in law for misjoinder of parties. 12.   …

…According to the Counsel, this was a classic example of misjoinder of parties as envisaged under the provision of Order 1 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010.…

…This was a misjoinder of parties under Order 1 Rule 9. The 2nd and 4th Defendants were public servants who were carrying out their specific duties. There was no remedy to be sought against them in a civil action.…