A voluntary association cannot by agreement between its members give any individual the right to sue on their behalf.
Where it is practically impossible for a body of numerous members to appear as plaintiffs, the Court may make an order under section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, permitting one or more of such members to sue on behalf of the rest. It is not the duty of a Judge to throw technical difficulties in a way of administering justice. He ought to remove them out of the way upon proper terms as to costs and otherwise. In a Court of Requests all technicalities of law should be avoided.
Read Vs. Samsudeen (1 N.L.R. 292)
The application for the appointment of certain persons to sue or to be sued in a representative capacity, under section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, need not proceed from those persons themselves. It may be made by person seeking to sue them, and even in the face of the opposition of a person sought to be made representative. It is not necessary in an application for this purpose to specify by name all the persons to be represented. It is sufficient to describe them generally, and leave them, if necessary, to be subsequently ascertained.
Ramen Chetty Vs. Mackwood Ltd (24 N.L.R. 73)
The effect of a representation order under section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code is to bind persons who are not parties, but who are represented as having a common interest, only so far as the property which is the subject matter of the action is concerned, but is ineffectual to render them liable in costs or damages.
Jayawardene Vs. The Baptist Missionary Society (25 N.L.R. 97)
Where the plaintiffs, representing a number of persons, sued the defendants for return of the money held by the latter for the benefit of the plaintiffs and those whom they represented.
Court held, that the plaintiffs had a common interests in bringing the action within the meaning of section 16 of the code.
Where the court in giving permission to the plaintiffs to sue on behalf of the others directed them to give required notice under the section in two publications. A failure to comply with such an order was fatal irregularity.
Suppaiah Pillai Vs. Ramanathan (39 N.L.R. 90)
Where an action was instituted against an unincorporated association on 15th March 1936 and the plaintiff moved on 20th May 1936 to serve summons on the secretary and others advertising in a public news paper.
The action may be deemed to have been instituted on 20th May 1936.
Silva Vs. Low Country Products Association (39 N.L.R. 228)
Permission given by Court under Section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code to sue one or more persons as representing numerous defendants need not necessarily be in express terms if the granting of such permission is otherwise clear, considering the averments in the plaint, the application in the prayer and the order of the court allowing the application.
Although the notice given by a plaintiff by public advertisement in terms of section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code should, on the face of it, indicate that it is given by or on the order of the court, failure to state therein that it is given by or on the order of the court is, at the most, an irregularity which does not warrant a dismissal of the action.
Kandasamy Vs. Kumarasekeram (63 N.L.R. 193)
Where goods are supplied to an unincorporated members club, the members of the club who will be liable to pay the seller are only those who give or authorize the giving of the order for the goods.
Perinparajah Vs. Fernando (68 N.L.R. 337)
A person is not entitled to sue in a representative capacity under section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code on behalf of a club or an unincorporated body of person unless he is also liable to be sued in a representative capacity. A patron or adviser of a club has no “common interest” with the members of the club and, therefore, has no status to sue in a representative capacity on behalf of the club.
Pabilis Vaidiya Vs. Kumara Young Farmers Club (69 N.L.R. 569)
Where permission is given by Court under section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code to a party to sue on behalf of persons having a common interest in bringing the action, the section imposes on the Court, after granting such permission, the duty of giving notice of the institution of the action to all persons on behalf of whom the action is brought.
Where the Court, after giving permission to sue, proceeded to direct notice of the application to sue to be given in the newspapers inviting persons interested to show cause against the application.
Held,that the notice was misconceived and that the proceedings were irregular. On an application for leave to sue under section 16 such objectors are not entitled to be heard.
Where the applicants for permission to sue on behalf of an Association claimed the right to represent a section of the members, who held certain views with regard to its management at the time of the institution of the proceedings, it is not a valid objection to the application that the whole body on whose behalf the proceedings are taken is not of the same opinion.
Caroline Soysa Vs. Lady Ratwatte (45 N.L.R. 553)
The plaintiff-respondent-respondent sued the 1st defendant-respondent the rider of the motor cycle who caused the collision with the deceased resulting in his death and the 2nd defendant-appellant who is the registered owner of the motor cycle and the employer of the 1st defendant-respondent.
The 2nd defendant-appellant, by its Chairman, defended the action against the 2nd defendant. It was contended that the action cannot be maintained against the 2nd defendant-appellant who is not a juristic person.
The trial Court entered decree in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
Per Wijeyaratne, J.,
“The person liable in respect of death or bodily injury to a third party is the registered owner. Accordingly the 2nd defendant-appellant is the person according to the Motor Traffic Act that should be sued in the event of death of a third party caused by the use of the motor vehicle concerned whether it is a juristic person or otherwise.”
It is trite law that an organization which is not a juristic person should be represented by a principal officer such as Chairman/President/Secretary. In the instant case, the Chairman of the 2nd defendant organization has not only filed proxy but answered fully the case against the 2nd defendant. This is in total accord with section 16 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is in order and lawful to enter judgment on the 2nd defendant-appellant as well.
Central Council of Disabled persons Vs. Ovitage (2004 (1) S. L. R. 138)
No comments:
Post a Comment