22. Objections for nonjoinder or misjoinder to be taken before hearing

22. All objections for want of parties, or for joinder of parties who have no interest in the action, or for misjoinder as co-plaintiffs or co-defendants, shall be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, and in all cases before the hearing. And any such objection not so taken shall be deemed to have been waived by the Defendant.

An objection to non joinder of parties should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity, otherwise such objection shall be considered to have been waived.

John Sinno Vs. Julis Appu (10 N.L.R. 351) 

One co-owner can bring an action against an another co-owner without joining all co-owners of the land. The court has jurisdiction to add other co-owners in order to enable to the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the action.

Heenhamy Vs. Mohottihamy (19 N.L.R. 235) 

An objection to the misjoinder of parties and causes of action after the case is closed, too late.

Fernando Vs. Perera (21 N.L.R. 94) 

The plaintiff consulted Dr. Uragoda (the 1st defendant) at the “Glass House” of which the 2nd to 6th defendants were partners, for fever and cough. As advised, the plaintiff obtained an X-ray, from the Glass House, on the basis of which Dr. Uragoda treated the plaintiff for tuberculosis. Since the plaintiff did not recover he took a 2nd X-ray from another institution. That X-ray showed no tuberculosis. On Dr. Uragoda’s treatment thereafter, the plaintiff recovered; whereupon the plaintiff sued Dr. Uragoda and 2nd to 6th defendants for damages.

At the trial on 17.01.2000 issues were raised by the 1st defendant inter alia stating that there was a misjoinder of defendants and of causes of action which issues the defendants, applied to be taken up as preliminary issues of law.

On 20.10.2000 the District Judge held in favour of the plaintiff on the said issues.

De Silva J. held that;

Section 22 of the Civil Procedure Code requires issues of misjoinder of parties to be raised at the earliest possible opportunity before the hearing but in this case issues were raised after the trial commenced.

The issue of misjoinder of parties ought to have been taken by motion in terms of section 91 read with section 18 of the Code.

The Court has no power to dismiss an action for misjoinder of causes of action.

As such the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on the issues relating to misjoinder.

Uragoda Vs Jayasinghe (2004 (1) S. L.R 108)