One of several co-debtors who are jointly and severally liable in respect of a debt may, upon paying more than his proportionate share of the debt, recover from his co-debtors their proportionate shares of the excess, whether the entire debt has been extinguished or not by such payment.
Gauder Vs. Gauder (8 N.L.R. 34)
Plaintiff brought an action to recover the value of 24 sheeps which, he alleged, were killed at the same time by several dogs owned (not jointly) by various persons, and joined the several owners as defendants in the action.
Held; that the defendants should not have been sued in one action.
Aiyampillai Vs. Vairavanatha Kurukkel (16 N.L.R. 231)
Where a plaintiff claimed the entirety of a block of land on one title and complained that the defendants were severally in possession of separate and defined portions of it, would be misjoinder of defendants and causes of action to institute one action against all the defendants for the recovery of the whole block, unless it could be shown that the defendants were acting in concert in depriving the plaintiff of the possession of the entire block.
Lowe Vs. Fernando (16 N.L.R. 398)
An action can be brought jointly and severally against several defendants. Even alternative causes of action are permitted. Misjoinder or non joinder cannot be raised in the answer. It should be taken by motion or application at the earliest opportunity.
London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Co.Vs. P.& O Company (18 N.L.R. 15)
Where three persons conspired together to charge another falsely with an offence, all three may be sued together in an action for damages.
The actio injuriarum may be brought against a person who with the necessary intent puts the law in motion, though he may not himself institute proceedings in the court.
Appuhamy Vs. Appuhamy (21 N.L.R. 436)
Where a husband and wife granted a joint promissory note and wife died, the payee entitled to sue the husband and wife’s administrator on the contract of loan.
Vaityalingam Vs. Karunakara. (22 N.L.R. 343)
Originally action was filed against the agent to recover money. Subsequently applied to add the principle and it is allowed.
Raman Chetty Vs. Mackwood. (24 N.L.R. 73)
Where two causes of action are joined in one action against two defendants, in one of which it is claimed that the defendants are jointly liable and in the other it is claimed solely liable. Court held that there was a misjoinder of parties and causes of action. In such a case Supreme Court may remit the action to the trial court for such amendments in the pleadings as may enable the plaintiffs to regularize the proceedings.
Fernado Vs. Fernando (39 N.L.R. 145)
A person cannot be sued in his personal capacity in respect of a cause of action which arose against him in representative capacity.
A person sued in his personal capacity cannot in the same proceedings claim relief by way of reconvention in respect of a cause of action which is alleged to have accrued to him in a representative capacity.
Blacker Vs. David (53 N.L.R. 499)
The amending law No. 6 of 1990, provided for the substitution of the person who is alleged to be the legal representative. The appointment of a substituted defendant with exact precision was not intended. This is because, sometimes the party instituting action does not know the names of the executor/ administrator, the administrator may not be appointed within the prescriptive period of the action.
Nilamdeen Vs. Dayananda (2002 (1) S.L.R. 160)
The failure to sue a legal/juristic or natural person is a material defect which cannot be cured by an amendment. The proper remedy would have been to withdraw the case and file a fresh plaint.
M.M Mohideen Vs. Director General of Customs (Bar Journal 2012 Vol. XIX Part II page 327)
No comments:
Post a Comment