36. In other cases

36. (1) Subject to the rules contained in the last section, the plaintiff may unite in the same action several causes of action against the same defendant or the same defendants jointly, and any plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant or defendants may unite such causes of action in the same action.

But if it appears to the court that any such causes of action cannot be conveniently tried or disposed of together, the court may, at any time before the hearing, of its own motion or on the application of any defendant, in both cases either in the presence of, or upon notice to, the plaintiff, or at any subsequent stage of the action if the parties agree, order separate trials of any such causes of action to be had, or make such other order as may be necessary or expedient for the separate disposal thereof.

(2) When causes of action are united, the jurisdiction of the court as regards the action shall depend on the amount or value of the aggregate subject-matter at the date of instituting the action, whether or not an order has been made under the second paragraph of subsection (1).

One case may be maintained by the same plaintiff against the same defendants in respect of two or more separate and distinct parcels of land.

If in such a case the court finds it inconvenient to dispose of all the causes of action together, it should not dismiss the plaintiff’s claim, but make order for separate trials in terms of section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Kaluhamy Vs. Appuhamy (18 N.L.R. 87) 

A rei vindicatio action in respect of a land cannot be maintained unless the Defendant was in possession of the land at the time when the cause of action accrued. In a rei vidicatio action instituted against the same defendant in respect of different lands claimed on one title from the same source, the cause of action in respect of each land is different. There is, however, no objection to the plaintiff uniting in one action several different causes of action against the same defendant in accordance with section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Morais Vs. Victoria (73 N.L.R. 409) 

It could not be said that the plaint discloses only one cause of action, for one wrongful act which causes injury to more than one person may give rise to separate causes of action. However, on the facts all five plaintiffs were “jointly interested” in each cause of action and the joinder was permissible under section 36(1) of the Civil Procedure Code. 

“….it is well to remember that a court should not be fettered by technical objections on matters of procedure.”

Carron Vs. Udeshi (1996 (2) S.L.R. 220) 

The Plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same defendant may unite such causes of action in the same action as provided for in section 36(1) of the Code.

Carron Vs.Udeshi (Bar Journal 1997 Vol. VII Part I page 32)