LEGUSC LAWS

Empower your legal journey with our comprehensive legal resocurces

The principles of joinder of parties and Third-party procedure

criminal , evidence
Do you need an answer for your class question (s)?  Download our mobile App now to join our student’s forum where you will get an answer from experts and other members

Qn:   Asha was seriously injured when traveling as a front passenger in car driven by Juma, which was involved in a head-on collision with a car driven by Adam.  Asha contemplates filing a suit for damages.  Both vehicles were insured by National Insurance corporation Ltd.  In his reply to the demand note Juma denies liability and blames Adam.  In his defence Adam denies liability alleging his vehicle skidded on a wet road and further alleges Asha was contributorily negligent in not wearing a seat belt.  Asha has already lost earning of Tshs. 50,000 a month over last month and is unlikely to return to work for at least 8 months.  She has used up all her savings and is rapidly sinking into debt.

Advise Asha on, whom to sue and the principles that will be applied.


1.0     INTRODUCTION

The general rule is that no person is compelled to join as plaintiffs or defendants with others in one suit.  However, the law makes provisions for those who want to sue jointly to do so because we are operating an adversarial system, which system presupposes an individualistic approach to complaint; in other words, under adversarial system the parties to proceedings are masters of the procedure.


Joinder of parties has one intention, that of avoiding a multiplicity of suits; and it is in the interest of the public that litigation should come to a speedy end.  Whether one is going to need the same evidence if several suits were brought, it is in this case advisable to join the parties.  Also to minimize the costs of proceedings or litigation as well as saving time of the courts are reasons behind joinder of parties.

The court has the duty to control the action; it may order a splitting up of the parties when it is of the opinion that the causes of action would not be conveniently tried together, for example the plaintiff would be embarrassed when the suits are going to be tried jointly.  Order 1 rule 2[i] gives the court such a power, that is, “court may put plaintiff to an election or order the splitting of the suit.  Putting the plaintiff to an election means the plaintiff is made to chose who should remain in the suit or who should go.  This is absolute discretion by the court but to be exercised judiciously, only after the court is satisfied that the joinder of the suit would delay the proceedings or that the plaintiff is going to be embarrassed.


  1.          Main body
The question in hand involves who are parties to a suit; the principles of joinder of parties and Third-party procedure.  To attempt the question the following issues will assist to set the scope of the answer:
          (i)     Whether Juma and Adam can be parties to a suit to be filed by Asha
(ii)      Whether Juma and Adam can be jointly sued in a single suit
iii)    Whether the National Insurance Corporation, the insurer of the two motor vehicles can be brought into the same suit.


2.1     Parties to a suit 

For any civil litigation to exist there should be opposing parties, and there has to be a dispute, that is, subject matter in dispute.  There has to be also a cause of action and a claim for relief.

Where there are opposing parties, the one in whom the cause of action rests is called the ‘plaintiff’, and the one who against him/her the relief is sought or claimed is termed as the ‘defendant’.  Out of these two categories there are two types of parties in any civil litigation, namely ‘necessary parties’ and ‘proper parties’.

A necessary party to civil proceedings is that party in whose absence no effective order can be give.  He is a person, if plaintiff ; and if defendant, he is a party against who a relief is sought.  To establish whether a party is a necessary party the important question is whether the court may issue effective order in his absence or not.  This is because the purpose of civil litigation is to issue an effective order; to avoid a possibility of issuing an empty decree.  There is a formulation of the categorization found in Saha: “The Code of Civil Procedure” 1908 p. 263 that:
          “A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made
          Effectively and the proper party is one in whose absence an effective
          Order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete
          And final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.
          Against a necessary party there must be a right to some relief in respect
          Of the matters involved in the proceeding in question, it must not be
          Possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such party.  The test
          For determining effectiveness of a decree is whether a decree can be
          Executed without the presence of the party in question as regards the
          Property sought to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff.”


Without dwelling much on the parties, in a summary, it can be said that, two principles can be stated in respect of the concept of parties to suit, that is to say:  All necessary and proper parties have to be before the court so as to facilitate the effectual  determination of the matter in dispute – meaning joinder of parties.  Furthermore, to avoid a multiplicity of suits all disputes or questions arising between such parties should, as far as possible, be determined in one action – joinder of causes.

The above principles being applied in the question in hand, and on determing the first issue, it can be said that, Juma and Adam, in their reply to Asha’s demand note disputed Asha’s claims, hence they are the opposing parties.   Asha on one side, that is, a plaintiff, and Juma and Adam on the other side, that is, defendants.  Between these parties there is a dispute, that is, liability to Asha’s injuries caused by the motor vehicle accident involving the two motor vehicles, one driven by Juma and the other driven by Adam.  There is a cause of action and Asha can claim damages for the injuries she sustained and compensation for loss of income.
In view of the above, it is my considered view that Juma and Adam are the proper parties (defendants) to be sued by Asha as they are persons whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the claims.  Asha is a necessary party on the side of plaintiff for she is the one in who the cause of action rests.  It is not mentioned in the given  material facts whether Juma and Adam  are also the owners of the motor vehicles.  Had it been that they are mere drivers, and that there are different people claimed to be owners of the motor vehicles or employers of the two, the following advice could have been added, that is, those owners should also be made parties, that is, they are the necessary parties to the suit because in their absence no effective order can be given.  Otherwise, if Juma and Adam are both drivers and owners of their vehicles, then each of them will be both proper and necessary party because an effective judgment can be obtained against each of them and presence of each is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings.  The first issue is therefore answered in the affirmative.


2.2        Joinder of Defendants   
As said above, a person may sue on his own behalf, but subject to certain conditions, several persons may sue jointly.  Similarly, a person may be sued alone, but again subject to certain conditions, several persons may be sued jointly in a single suit.  I will now proceed to examine the circumstances in which there can be proper joinder of defendants,

All persons may be joined as defendants against who, a right to relief, in respect of or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions, is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; where if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact would arise.[ii]  It is not necessary for the joinder of defendants that every defendant should be interested as to all the reliefs claimed in a suit against him, or as to every cause of action included in any proceeding against him.[iii]  In other words, it is immaterial that the causes of action against the defendants are different.  A plaintiff is entitled under this rule to join several defendants in respect of several and distinct causes of action.  Where the court is of the opinion that the joinder would embarrass a defendant or put him to unnecessary expense, it will order separate trials

As a general rule, then, where claims against different parties involve or may involve a common question of law or fact bearing sufficient importance in proportion to the rest of the action to make it desirable that the whole of the matter be disposed of at the same time, a court will allow the joinder of the defendants subject to its discretion as to how the action should be tried.[iv]  It was held in an English case of Payne  v.  British Time Recorder[v]in which Scrutton, L.J., stated, at page 393:

          …Broadly speaking, where claims by or against different parties involve or may involve a common question of law or fact bearing sufficient importance inproportion to the rest of the action to render it desirable that the whole of the
          matters should be disposed of at the same time, the court will allow the joinder
          of plaintiffs or defendants subject to its discretion as to how the action should
          be tried.

The second issue is whether Juma and Adam could be jointly sued in single suit.   As stated above, a plaintiff is not compelled to sue any defendant.  It is the plaintiff who chooses who to sue.  However, the law allows him/her to join defendants under circumstances as given under Order 1 rule3.[vi]    Defendants may be joined if the right of relief against them arises out of the same act or transaction, or a series of acts or transactions.  If separate suits were brought against defendants common question of facts or law may arise, that is, whether you are going to need the same evidence against all the defendants.


2.2.1   Interpretation of ‘common question of law’
The position of Order l rule 3 (supra) is construed liberally.  It implies that the question of law is common but the liability of defendant may be separate or general.  In the case of Harwood v. Statesman Publishing Coy Ltd,[vii] the judge stated:
            “You must look at the language of the rules and construe them
             liberally and where there are common question of law or fact
involved in different causes of action, you should include all
parties in one action subject to the discretion of the court if such
inclusion is embarrassing, to strike out one or more of the parties.
It is impossible to lay down any rule as to how the discretion of the
court ought to be exercised.  Broadly speaking where claims by or
against different parties involve common questions of law or fact
bearing sufficient importance in proportion to the rest of the
action to render it desirable that the whole of the matters should be
disposed of at the same time, the court will allow the joinder of
plaintiff or defendants subject to the courts discretion as to how
the action should be tried.”
How to give a liberal construction of rule, the above case gives a clue, that is, common questions of fact or law to bear the same evidence.  But the court has the final say to order joinder or strike out.

The case of Abdullah Mohamed v. The official Receiver[viii] adopts Horwood’s position in theoretical basis.  On practical basis consideration should be the case of Stroud v. Lawson[ix], in which conditions were given on joinder of parties, in other words, these have to be satisfied: 

(i)      There must be joint interest in the relief (for plaintiffs) or against the reliefs (the defendants; and 

(ii)    To avoid a misjoinder of parties there should be same defendants in respect of joinder of plaintiffs and same plaintiffs in respect of defendants. 
Chitty, J. stated the principle as follows:
“It is necessary that both these conditions should be fulfilled, that
Is to say, the right to relief alleged to exist in each plaintiff should
be in respect of or arise out of the same transaction and also there
should be common question of law or fact in order that the case
will be within the rule.”


The case was dealing with joinder of plaintiffs but can be disposed to the joinder of defendants too.  It should be noted that the two conditions must exist jointly, that is, they are complementary not exclusive.  (Both of them must be there, neither can stand alone).  You look at nature of the cause of action or basis for the cause action, which vests in every one of them separately.  Then look whether you are going to need the same evidence.

In the case at hand, the basis of cause of action which vests in Juma and Adam is that both being drivers of two different motor vehicles were involved in a head-on collision which resulted to seriously injuring Asha; the injuries which caused Asha to suffer loss of earnings and further unlikely to return to work for at least 8 months.  This is a cause of action which vests in each one of them separately.  There is a common question of fact, the liability of the drivers involved in the head-on collision of the motor vehicles.  Basing on the facts of the case given, it is my considered view that there is a joint interest against the relief  (the defendants, that is Juma and Adam)  The two of them separately denied liability of causing injuries to Asha, hence, under Order 1 rule 3 they can jointly be sued. 

In the case of Peter & Co. Ltd.  v. Mangalji & Others[x] the  court was interpreting Order 1 rule 3 (supra) in pari material with Order 1 rule 5 of Uganda Civil Procedure law.  Sherridan, J. pointed out points to be satisfied before joinder of defendants as follows: 

(i)     The right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or a series of acts or transactions must be alleged to exist whether jointly or severally, and  

(ii)         The suit must be one where if separate suits were brought against such persons any common question of law or fact will arise.


It is my view that Asha’s right to relief is in respect of or arising out of the same act, that is, causing injuries and damages through careless driving by the two drivers, which resulted to head on collision.  The suit is one where if separate suits are filed against each of them common fact and law will arise, that is, who is liable.


There is another position which also may allow Asha to sue the two jointly even if she is not sure of who is her correct defendant.  This is found under Order 1 rule 7.[xi]  According to this provision of law she may join all people she may think are liable to her and leave it to court to decide who to sue.  This has an advantage that the people who will appear before the court they would show why they should not be joined, hence Asha would not fail to realize his relief.  However there is a disadvantage in respect of expenses; the one who will be struck out will make her suffer costs payable to him.  Also the impression that she will show to court may create a feeling to the court that she is not master of her own law. 

In the result therefore, the second issue is also answered in the affirmative.


2.3       Third Party Procedure

In this paragraph, I will endeavour to discuss though in brief the principles of third party procedure so as to determine the third issue as to whether the National Insurance Corporation, the insurer of the two motor vehicles can be brought into the same suit.
Third Party Procedure  is available to the defendants only and it has to fall within the four corners of Order 1 rule 14.[xii]  The party brought in by defendant is not an ordinary party to the suit and the plaintiff has no quarrel with him; not original party.  It is a procedure which facilitate the conduct of two suits simultaneously (at the same time), that is to say, original suit brought by plaintiff and the second suit brought by defendant against third party.  It was based on Equity but the Judicature of 1881 made the Common Law also to apply it.  Its rationale are as follows, that is to say, third party is based on the political position that, as far as possible all matters relating to the subject matter of the suit should be determined in one suit.  It is also based on public policy that as far as possible multiplicity should be avoided.  By enacting third party procedure into civil procedure facilitate the bringing of a third party who is not sued by plaintiff.  Third party procedure therefore, has the effect of saving the time of court and time of parties by allowing the claim of defendant to be entertained simultaneously.  All the facts surrounding the case are put into court at the same time.  There will be no possibility of conflicting decision.
The above rationale of the third-party procedure is stipulated in the case of Standard Securities Ltd.  v.  Hubbard & Another Tele Insurance Ltd Third Party.[xiii]  Penny Cuick, J. in this case stated the objects of third-party procedure that:
          “The objects of the rule are to prevent multiplicity of actions, to enable the court
           to settle disputes between all parties to them in one action and to prevent the
same question from being tried twice with possibly different results.”


Let us take one example.  A sues B for damages to his house resulting from a motor accident between two vehicles driven by B and C.  In such a case, B may apply for a third-party notice against D, his insurance company, because B’s claim against D is connected with the subject matter of the suit between B and A and relates substantially to the relief claimed by A from B.

In order that a third party may lawfully be joined in a suit the subject matter between the third party and the defendant must be the same as the subject matter between the plaintiff and the defendant and the original cause of action must be the same.  This was so held in the case of Yafesi Walusimbi  v.  A-G.[xiv]  This case was elaborated in the case of Edward Kironde Kagura v.  Casta Pereira,[xv] also the case of Overseas Touring (Road Services) Ltd.  v.  Arica Produce Agency.[xvi]  According to the two cases, third party procedure is limited to claims for contribution or indemnity only.  In the case of Kironde (supra) the right to indemnity arises mainly out of a contract but it is not confined to contracts.  That is a general situation.  But in East Africa there has been some modification.  The courts have accepted the position that a joint tort feasor proceedings can be introduced in cases of right to indemnity or contribution.  This is by virtue of the case of Champion Motor Spares Ltd v.  Barclays Bank D.C.O and Another.[xvii]


In England we obtained a summary on the above situation in Birmingham & District Land Co.  v.  London and North Western Rly Co.[xviii]  This case was interpreting the provision of Order l6 rule 48 of the Supreme Court Practice which is similar to our Order 1 rule 14 (supra).  According to  that case, “in order to bring a case within Order 16 rule 48 (equivalent to Order 1 rule 14 (supra)) it is not enough that if the plaintiff succeeds the defendant will have a claim against the third party but defendant must have against the third party a direct right of indemnity as such which right must generally if not always arise from a contract express or implied.”


In the case of Parry v. Carson[xix] we can find a general rule that, so that a third-party action can be competent the defendant must show that in case he is found liable to the plaintiff then he has a right to recover against a third party.  He shows that in his affidavit and in his pleadings.  Such a possibility exists only when the subject matter is the same, that is, it is possible when there is a direct connection.  In this case the judge said,
          “In order to bring himself within the ambit of Order 1 rule 14 the
          applicant must show upon the face of his pleadings and upon his
          supporting affidavit that he would be entitled to indemnity from the
          third party in respect of the amount which the plaintiff claims from him
          in the event of that claim being successful.”


This conclude the discussion on point of law concerning third party.  In practice an application to file a Third Party Notice is made ex parte, that is, in the absence of the plaintiff and it must be supported by an affidavit.  Order 1 rule 14 (2) (supra) does not indicate the method of application; hence, we fall back to Order XL111 rule 2 (supra), that the application is by way of a Chamber Summons supported by affidavit.

In the above circumstances and basing on the principles of law therein, I advise the would-be defendants, that is, Juma and Adam, that upon being sued by Asha and after filing their defence, they should also file an application by way of Chamber Summons under Order 1 rule 14 (2) (supra) and any other enabling law, for leave to produce a third-party notice.  Such an application must be supported by an affidavit which should state, inter alia, the nature of plaintiff’s case, stage to which the proceedings have reached, nature of defendants’ claim against the third party.  It should also state the relationship between the defendants and the third party- all those in terms of Order 1 rule 14 (supra).  This procedure under Order 1 rule 14 (supra) is intended to save time of the court and to minimize costs.  In the final result then the third issue will therefore, have been answered in the affirmative.


  1. Conclusion
In the above discussion it was attempted to show the basis of an advice to Asha on whom to sue and the principles that will apply.  From the discussion therefore, Asha is advised to sue Juma and Adam for damages and loss of earnings caused by injuries she sustained from the accident caused by the two.  The advice has been extended to the proposed two defendants that, because the two vehicles were insured by the National Insurance Corporation Ltd., they should seek to bring into the suit a third party on grounds of indemnity from the third party in the event the defendants are held liable.







































Read more »
Tags: , , ,

The concept aspects of temporary injunction.

civil , criminal
Do you need an answer for your class question? Well, download our mobile pp now to join our students forum where you can get an assistance from our experts and other contriburors.

Qn:  The remedy of temporary injunction is the most abused remedy in the hands of courts. This is because the courts have so far failed to establish any credible rules of law for guiding judicial discretion in the granting of temporary injunctions.

                               
OUTLINE:

  1. INTRODUCTION.
  2. THE CONCEPT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
  3. CASES IN WHICH TEMPORARY INJUNCTION MAY BE GRANTED.
  4. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS.
5.0WHETHER THE REMEDY IS ABUSED BY COURTS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH RULES GUIDING COURT DISCRETION IN GRANRING THE SAME.
  1. CONCLUSION.
  2. BIBLIOGRAPHY.


  1.     INTRODUCTION.

An injunction is a judicial remedy prohibiting persons from doing a specific act called a restrictive injunction, or commanding them to undo some wrong or injury called a mandatory injunction, and may be either temporary, interim or interlocutory, or permanent. Order 37 deals with temporary injunctions.

Generally, in civil procedure law, injunctions are of two kinds, temporary and perpetual. Injunction being in the nature of a preventive relief is generally granted taking note of the equity. However, the court has no jurisdiction to grant by way of interim relief what could never be granted in the main suit itself. Also, an injunction can only be granted by a competent civil court and not by any revenue authority under a tenancy law or by an election tribunal which is not a civil court.[1]


  1.     THE CONCEPT ASPECTS OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

Temporary injunctions are restraints orders against a party or property of a party before the suit or matter is finally determined.
The injunction is called temporary, for it endures only until the suit is disposed of or until the further orders of the court. A temporary or interim injunction may be granted on an interlocutory application at any stage of a suit.
Order 37 rule 1 of the civil procedure code stipulates that;

Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise; 
 -that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged, or alienated by any party to the suit of or suffering loss of value by reason of its continued use by any party to the suit,  wrongly sold in execution of a decree; or
That the defendant threatens, or intends to remove or dispose of his property with view to defraud his creditors, The court may, by order grant a temporary injunction to restraint such act or make such other order, for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, loss in value, removal or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.


Similarly, in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the suit has been filed, and either before or after judgement, apply to the court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing such breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like nature arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right[2].

If the court is satisfied that the defendant might commit the breach or injury complained of by the plaintiff, it will grant the temporary injunction sought on such terms as it thinks fit. In a recent case of M/S Empire Properties Ltd v Kinondoni Municipal Council[3] whereby the defendant wish to demolish Masaki Building Complex which would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff. In order to avoid such damage the court granted temporary injunction.

In addition, in making orders of temporary injunctions the court may order such term as to the keeping of accounts and giving security.

Orders of temporary injunction may be made ex parte as provide under order 37 rule 4. The court must in all cases direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party. The court before whom such an application is made can only proceed ex parte where it appear that the giving of such notice would cause undue delay and that such undue delay would defeat the object for which the application has been made as shown in Hans Wolfgang Golcher v G. Manager Morogoro Canvas Mill Ltd[4]  Maina, J stated that;

“…the rule that the court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite party is mandatory… If the opposite party can be served without delay, as was the position in this case, an ex parte injunction should not be issued.
” 
The same was insisted in the case of Tanzania Knitwear Ltd. V Shamshu Esmail[5].


3.0     CASES IN WHICH TEMPORARY INJUNCTION MAY BE GRANTED.

These can be found under order 37 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise;

  • That; any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or;
  • That the defendant threatens or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors.
  • That the defendant threatens to disposes the plaintiff or otherwise causes injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit;
The court may, by order, grant a temporary injunction to restraint such act or make such other order, for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, loss in value, removal or disposition of the property as the court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.


  1.     PRINCIPLES GOVERNING TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS.

The granting of a temporary injunction under the power conferred by this (rule) is a matter of discretion. True, it is a matter of judicial discretion. But if the court which grants the injunction rightly appreciates the facts and applies to those facts the true principles, then that is a sound exercise of judicial discretion.[6] In the case of Ibrahim v Ngaiza[7] it was held that; it a question of discretion of the court, which discretion must be exercised judicially by appreciating the facts and applying them to the principles governing issuance of temporary injunctions.

The court can grant a temporary injunction in exercise of its inherent powers under section 95. Where a suit was dismissed for default and application was made for the restoration of the suit, though Order 37 rule I cannot be involved, yet the court can grant an interim injunction under section 95 in the interest of justice.

The court in granting temporary injunction must first see that there is a bonafide contention between the parties, and on which side, in the event of success, will lay the balance of inconvenience if the injunction does not issue. Or as stated in the judgment of Cotton LJ in Preston v. Luck,[8] to entitle a plaintiff to an interlocutory injunction, the court should be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and that on the facts before it there is a probability that a plaintiff is entitled to relief. The real point upon an application for a temporary injunction is not how the question ought to be decided at the hearing of the case, but whether there is a substantial question to be investigated and whether matters should not be preserved in status quo until that question can be finally disposed of.

Furthermore, where a perpetual injunction is sued for, and the plaintiff applies for temporary injunction, the court should grant a temporary injunction if the effect of not granting such an injunction will be to deprive the plaintiff forever of the right claimed by him in the suit. The object of injunction is to preserve status quo. In issuing a temporary injunction, the tests to be applied are:

(i)        Where the plaintiff has a prima facie case;
(ii)      Where the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff; and
(iii)   Whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable injury if his prayer for temporary injunction is disallowed. 

The phrases ‘prima facie case’, balance of convenience’, and irreparable loss’ are words of width and elasticity to meet myriad (countless/multitude) situations presented by man’s ingenuity in given facts and circumstances but they must always be hedged with a sound exercise of judicial discretion to meet the ends of justice.[9]

A prima facie case implies the probability of the plaintiff obtaining relief on the material placed before the court. Every piece of evidence produced by either party has to be taken into consideration in deciding the existence of a prima facie case. For establishing a prima facie case, it is not necessary for the party to prove his case to the hilt (as much as possible) and if a fair question is raised for determination, it should be taken that a prima facie case is established.[10]

The plaintiff must establish that the balance of convenience in the event of withholding the relief of temporary injunction will, in all events exceed that of the defendant in case he is restrained. The plaintiff must also show a clear necessity for affording protection to his alleged right which would otherwise be seriously injured or impaired. The principle of balance of convenience implies the evenly balancing of scales.

The term ‘irreparable injury’ means injury which is substantially and could never be adequately remedied or atoned for by damages, injury which cannot possibly be repaired.[11] It implies a substantial and continuous injury for which there does not exist any standard for ascertaining the actual damage likely to be caused. Irreparable injury, however, does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means only that the injury must be a material one that cannot be adequately remedied or compensated by way of damage. Diversion of funds from a charitable organization is held to be an instance of irreparable injury.[12]

Application of these principles was shown in the case of Hans Wolfgang Golcher v General Manager of Morogoro Canvas Mill Limited[13]. In the case, the court accepted the appellant submissions that the ex-parte temporary injunction was issued against known principles governing temporary injunctions.  Learned counsel submitted that an applicant for an interim injunction must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success and that the facts must show that if a temporary injunction is not granted, the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which cannot be adequately compensated by an award of damages.  He cited the case of Giella v Cassman Brown H and C. Ltd [1973] EA 358 at page 360.

Under O 37, r 1 the court has the power to grant an ex parte order, however the same should be granted only under exceptional circumstance. The factors which should weigh for the grant of exparte injunction are:

  • Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
  • Whether refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
  • The time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained of;
  • Whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time;
  • Whether the application is made in utmost good faith; and
  • In any case, an ex parte order even if granted must be for a limited period of time.

The general principles of balance of convenience, prima facie case and irreparable loss would also be considered by court.

The principles on the bases of which application for temporary injunctions are granted or refused are well settled in the case of Attilio v Mbowe[14], George, CJ restated the principles in the following terms:

It is generally agreed that there are three conditions which must be satisfied before such an injunction can be issued:
i)            There must be a serious question to tried on the fact alleged and a probability that the plaintiff will be entitled to the relief prayed,
ii)        That the courts interference is necessary to protect the plaintiff from the kind of injury which may be irreparable before his legal right is established, and 
iii)        That on the balance there will be greater hardship and mischief suffered by the plaintiff from withholding of the injunction than will be suffered by the defendant from the granting of it…the court must be satisfied that the damage which the plaintiff will suffer will be such that mere man compensation will not be adequate.

He added that a temporary injunction will normally be granted only if the whole point of the perpetual injunction claimed will be defeated if the temporary injunction is not granted.

The case of T.A. KAARE v GENERAL MANAGER MARA COOPERATIVE UNION[15] presented the same view. The court held inter alia;

…Before granting a discretionary interlocutory injunction the court should   consider:
          (a)   Whether there is a bonafide contest in between the parties.
        (b)  On which side, in the event of the plaintiff's success will be the balance of inconvenience if the injunction does not issue, bearing in mind the principle of retaining immovable property in status quo.
          (c)  Whether there is an occasion to protect either of the parties from injury known as "irreparable" before his right can be established. "Irreparable Injury" means that the injury will be material i.e. one that could not be adequately remedied by damages.


4:0   WHETHER THE REMEDY IS ABUSED BY COURTS FOR FAILURE TO ESTABLISH RULES GUIDING COURT DISCRETION IN GRANTING THE SAME.

It is our observation, as we have discussed earlier that granting temporary injunction is the matter of court discretion. Having such discretions, the court however is initially required to act judicially. Moreover, there are laid down principles which the court must abide with when exercising the discretion. These were discussed with under part 4 of this work.
Likewise, Ex parte orders of temporary injunctions must not be made at the whim of a court. Rule 4 of Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for the issuance of notice of the application to the opposite party. This was also discussed under part 2 of this paper.

The granting of a temporary injunction under the power conferred by this (rule) is a matter of discretion. True, it is a matter of judicial discretion. But if the court which grants the injunction rightly appreciates the facts and applies to those facts the true principles, then that is a sound exercise of judicial discretion.[16]

Temporary injunction is a matter of discretion which, has to be judicially exercised.[17] In the case of Ibrahim v Ngaiza[18] it was held that; it a question of discretion of the court, which discretion must be exercised judicially by appreciating the facts and applying them to the principles governing issuance of temporary injunctions.

Injunctions and stay orders should not be granted mechanically without realising the harm likely to be caused to the opposite party and it is not proper to burden the other party by saying that the other party can get the stay order vacated as stated in DDA v Skipper Construction Co. (Pvt) Ltd[19].

From the foregoing discussion, we are of the opposite view from the view presented in the question. The courts establish principles which the court has to apply while exercising discretion on granting temporary injunction. In circumstances which the court grant the same without regarding those rules, and where the party is dissatisfied with the injunction order, he can make application to se aside the order. This is provided for under rule 5 of order 37 of the civil procedure code. In India injured party has the right to appeal against the order. A court of appeal may interfere with an order relating to injunction where the action is arbitrary or passed without consideration of the ingredients necessary for the grant of injunction[20].


  1. CONCLUSION.

In several instances, like in granting orders of temporary injunctions, courts are vested with discretionary powers. It is a rule of law that discretionary powers of the court should be applied judicially while regarding the circumstances of the case .Courts should not be guided with self-interests. In such circumstances, courts have been trying to establish principles which will guide the court while exercising discretion.


[1] Mohd Siraj Ahmad  V.State Election Commission AIR 2000 Gau 101
[2] . Order 37 Rule 2(1) of C.P.C.
[3] . Civil Case 2006 (Unreported)
[4] . (1987) T.L.R. 78.
[5] . (1989) T.L.R 48.
[6] White CJ in the case of Subba V. Haji Badsha (1903) ILR 26 Mad 168,174.
[7] .(1971) HCD n. 249.
[8] (1887) 27 CD 497,506; Babu Rameshwar Prasad Singh v. Md Ayyub AIR 1950 Pat 527.
[9] Dalpat Kumar V. Prahlad Singh AIR 1993 SC 276
[10] Gadadhar Mishra v Biraja Devi AIR 1999 Ori 49
[11] Multichannel India Ltd v Kavitalaya Productions Pvt Ltd  AIR 1999 Mad 59
[12] Gadadhar Mishra v Biraja Devi AIR 1999 Ori 49
[13] Supra
[14]  (1969) HCD n.284.
[15] (1987) TLR  n. 17
[16] White CJ in the case of Subba V. Haji Badsha (1903) ILR 26 Mad 168,174.
[17] Attorney General V Maalim Kadau and  16 Others
[18] .(1971) HCD n. 249.
[19] . (1996) AIR SC 2005.
[20] . UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v N.V Rajagopalam Acharya (1989) AIR 125 at pp 127-29.
Read more »
Tags: , , ,

The concept of conversion

criminal , law
Do you need an answer for your class question? Well, download our mobile pp now to join our student’s forum where you can get an assistance from our experts and other contributors.

Qn: It is good luck and quite legal to convert the ones personal use and property that fall into one’s hands as long as the parties purporting to be the true owners of the property are quarrelling over the ownership of the said property. The best one can tell the two quarrelling parties is that all liars and the law has no remedy for them.

Do you agree with the above statement as the true exposition of the law?


OUTLINE

  1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement in respect of the question
1.2 What is interpleader suit
1.3 Law governing interpleader suit


2.0 MAIN BODY
2.1 Statement in respect of the quotation from the question.
2.2 Reasons for disagreement with the quotation from the question.
2.3 Who may not institute Interpleader suit
2.4 Conditions to be satisfied before an Interpleader suit can be instituted
      2.5 How Interpleader suit is framed and its proceedings.
      2.6 Who may not institute interpleader suit
      2.7 Rationale for Interpleader suit


3.0 CONCLUSION

REFERENCE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Where two more people have an adverse claim all to a particular identifiable sum of money, property movable or immovable from another person who claims no interest therein other than charges or costs such person may institute an interpleader suit against the claimants so as to invite the court of law to determine the true owner of the said sum or property and of obtaining indemnity for himself. That being the case the question asked falls under Interpleader suit.

To interplead means to litigate with each other to settle a point concerning a third party.[1] In Halsbury’s Laws of England it has been stated that where a person is under liability in respect of any money, goods or chattels and he is, or expects to be, sued for or in respect of that debt or money, or those goods or chattels, by two or more persons making adverse claims thereto, he may apply to the court for relief by way of interpleader[2].

An interpleader suit is a suit in which the real dispute is not between a plaintiff and a defendant but between the defendants who interplead against each other, unlike in an ordinary suit In an interpleader suit, the plaintiff is not really interested in the subject matter of the suit.[3] Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Code enacts that two or more persons claiming adversely to one another same debt, sum of money or property movable or immovable, from a person who does not claim any interest therein and he is ready to pay or deliver the same to the rightful claimant, may file an interpleader suit.

Thus, for example A is in possession of car but he claims no interest in the car himself, and is willing to hand it over to the rightful owner. The car claimed by X and Y.A may file an interpleader suit against X and Y and the court will decide as to who is the rightful owner of the car as between X and Y.

The law governing interpleader suit is the law governing procedure in civil litigation i.e Civil Procedure Code, in our jurisdiction is Section 63 read together with Order XXXIII of the Civil Procedure Code.[4]

2.0 MAIN BODY
2.1 Statement in respect of the quotation from the question.

With the true exposition of law, we do not agree with the statement that it is good luck and quite legal to convert to one’s personal use any property that falls into ones hands as long as the parties purporting to be the true owners of the property are quarrelling over the ownership of the said property. The best one can tell the two quarrelling parties is that all liars and the law have no remedy for them.


2.2   Reasons for disagreement with the quotation from the question.

We do not agree with this statement on the sense that where individuals’ legal rights are in dispute such as right to property always court is invited to determine such rights and as long as they are legal rights law must have remedy toward such individuals. Also, the law governing civil litigation in Tanzania provides for the institution of a suit to deal such cases whenever arose.
S.63 of Civil Procedure Code provides
’’Where two or more persons claim adversely to one or another the same debt, sum of money or other property, movable or immovable, from another person who claims no interest therein other than for charges or costs and who is ready to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant, such other person may institute a suit of interpleader against all the claimants for the purpose of obtaining a decision as to the person to whom the payment or delivery shall be made and of obtaining indemnity for himself:
Provided that where any suit is pending in which the rights of the parties can properly be decided, no such suit of interpleader shall be instituted’’ 


2.3   Who may institute Interpleader suit
He who institutes interpleader suit is the one in possession of the property. Interpleader suit is not suit of ordinary nature because a person who institutes it has no cause of action, that no legal right violated against him, he has not claimed a remedy against anybody. He claims no interest in the property he posses, except charges and interest of handling such property which does not belong to him. He therefore wants the court to determine who is rightful owner of such property. No question can arise between him and the claimants over the ownership. Actually, he is ready to deliver such property to the rightful owner.

2.4 Conditions to be satisfied before an Interpleader suit can be instituted
There are conditions, which must be satisfied before an interpleader suit can be instituted.
1.There must be some debt, sum of money or other property movable or immovable in       dispute;
2.Two or more persons must be claiming it adversely to one another;
3.The person from whom the debt, money or property is claimed must not be claiming interest therein other than the charges and costs and he must be ready and willing to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant; and
4.There must be no suit pending wherein the rights of rival claimants can properly adjudicated.[5]
5.There must be no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.

When it is said that there must be no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants it means in such suit the plaintiff must be in an impartial position. If he has in some way, identified himself with one of the parties in the sense that it will make a difference to him one of them succeds, an interpleader suit will not lie. This is the provision of Order XXXIII,Rule 1 (c).  
 As such party who has taken an indemnity from one of the claimants is not entitled to file an interpleader suit as held in the case of Jugnath vTulka.[6]
In this case, A had a sum of Rs.10, 000 which sum was claimed from him both by X and Y, advesly to each other. A thus instituted an interpleader suit against X and .It was found at the hearing that A had entered into an agreement with X before the suit was instituted, that if X succeeded in the suit, he would accept from A, R.s 75,00 only in full of satisfaction of his claim. Here A had an interest in the subject matter of the suit by virtue of his agreement with X.He was therefore not entitled to institute an interpleader suit and accordingly his suit was dismissed.

These conditions are also reiterated in the case of Sargent vGuatama[7] while a(Revised) Rules of Kenya, which is parimateria to our s.63, and O.XXXIII of our Civil Procedure Code. In this case it was held that in an intrpleader suit there are essentials as set out under s.58 of theCivil Procedure Act are that where there are two or more persons claiming the same debt or sum of money from another person who claims no interest therein save for any charges or costs. The proceedings may be instituted and the only limitation to the court’s power to grant the application are those set out in r.2 of O.33 of the Civil Procedure (Revised) Rules 1948 of Kenya to the effect that the applicant must satisfy the court by affidavit or otherwise that
  1. the applicant claims no interest in the subject matter in dispute other than charges or costs
  2. there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the claimants
  3. the applicant is willing to do or transfer the subject matter into court or dispose of it as the court may direct

2.5 How Interpleader suit is framed and its proceedings

O.XXXIII of our Civil Procedure Code lays down the procedure for interpleader suits. Under r. 1 of this Order it provides among other things plaint shall contain the following;  
In every suit the plaint shall in addition to other statements necessary for plaints state
  1. that the plaintiff claims no interest in the subject matter in dispute other than for charges or costs;
  2. the claims made by the defendants severally; and
  3. that there is no collusion between the plaintiff and any of the defendants.


After institution of the suit the court may order the plaintiff to deposit the amount or place of property in the custody of the court before he can be entitled to any order in the suit, as provided under r 2 of O.XXXIII.
At the first hearing court declare that the plaintiff is discharged from all liability, award him costs and dismiss him from the suit, but if court thinks that justice so require it will retain all the parties until the final disposal of the suit; r 4 (1) (a),(b) of the same Order.
On the basis of the evidence available the court may adjudicate the title of thing claimed. Where it is not possible, the court may direct that an issue or issues between the parties be framed and tried, one of the claimants be made a plaintiff and the suit shall proceed in an ordinary manner; r 4(2), (3) (a) (b).


2.6 Who may not institute an interpleader suit.
There is certain category of persons who may not institute interpleader suit. Normally, agents or tenants shall not be permitted to file an interpleader suit against their principles and landlords except in circumstances where the disputes among the principles and the landlords are such which the agent or tenant cannot solve. If there be any honest doubt to which of the persons claiming to be landlords in cases of succession on the death of the original landlord, the tenant can file an interpleader suit. Simirlarly, where the agents entertains a genuine doubt as to which of the successors of the deceased principal is entitled to receive the amounts, the agent can file an interpleader suit as provided under O.XXXIII, r 5 of CPC.[8]

2.7 Rationale for Interpleader suit.

The rationale behind filing an interpleader suit is to get claims of the rival defendants adjudicated. It is the process wherein the plaintiff calls upon the rival claimants to appear before the court and get their claims decided. The decision of the court in an interpleader suit affords an indemnity to the plaintiff on the payment of money or delivery of property to the person whose claim has been upheld by the court.[9]


3.0 CONCLUSION
With the true exposition of law, we disagree with the statement that it is good luck and quite legal to convert to one’s personal use any property that falls into one’s hands as long as the parties purporting to be the true owners of the property are quarrelling over the ownership of the said property. The best one can tell the two quarrelling parties is that al liars and the law have no remedy for the them.  We do not agree with this statement on the sense that where individuals’ legal rights are in dispute such as right to property movable or immovable always court is invited to determine such rights and as long as they are legal rights law must have remedy toward such individuals. That being the case the law governing civil litigation in Tanzania; The Civil Procedure Code under s.63 read together with O.XXIII of the same Code provides for the institution of an interpleader suit to deal such cases whenever arose.



REFERENCES
1.  Groundnuts Extractions Export Development Assn.v State Bank of India (1977) 79 Bom LR 184 as cited in Takwani C.K op.cit
2. Civil procedure Act Cap 33 R.E 2002

Websites
1. Wikipedia.com


[1] Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995,p.712
[2] Halsbury’s Laws of England,(4th Edn), Vol.37 p.200,para264
[3] Mulla;Code of Civil Procedure,(2005) p.417
[4] Cap 33R.E2002
[5] Takwani C.K., Civil Procedure p.299
[6] (1908) 32 Bom.592 as cited in Jain P.M.,The Code of Civil Procedure p.250
[7] (1968) E.A338
[8] Also see Acharya N.K., Guide to CPC p.234
[9] Groundnuts Extractions Export Development Assn.v State Bank of India (1977) 79 Bom LR 184 as cited in Takwani C.K op.cit
Read more »
Tags: , ,