The Court emphasized strict compliance with procedural rules regarding joinder of parties and proper pleading to avoid confusion and ensure fair trial.

JUDGMENT

Akhtar Tahir J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff's claim against the Defendants was struck out by the Court as the Statement of Claim did not comply with the Rules of 2012 ("the Rules").

The Statement Of Claim

Misjoinder Of Parties And Cause Of Action

[2] The Plaintiff's claim as noted from the Statement of Claim is against 5 Defendants in different capacities. The claim against the 1st Defendant is as an individual who was employed by the Plaintiff whereas the claim against the other Defendants is as owners of different business enterprises supplying goods to the Plaintiff.

[3] The cause of action against the 1st Defendant is for breach of employment, dishonesty and corruption. The cause of action against the other Defendants which also includes the 1st Defendant is for conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff. next thing to note is that the cause of actions against the Defendants are different.

[4] A major portion of the Statement of Claim of almost 70 paragraphs is dedicated to outlining the breach of employment, dishonesty and corruption by the 1st Defendant and only a few paragraphs outlining the allegation of conspiracy against the other Defendants.

[5] The only nexus between the claim against the 1st Defendant and the other Defendants is that the 1st Defendant had appointed the other Defendants as supplier of goods to the Plaintiff leading to the claim of conspiracy.

[6] Order 15 of the Rules allows joinder of cause of action in the circumstance's stipulated:

1. Joinder of causes of action (O 15 r 1)

(1) Subject to r 5(1), a plaintiff may in one action claim relief against the same defendant in respect of more than one cause of action:

(a) if the plaintiff claims, and the defendant is alleged to be liable, in the same capacity in respect of all causes of action;

[Emphasis Mine]

[7] From the Rule above it is clear that joinder of cause of action is allowed only against the same Defendant and not against multiple Defendants as in this case.

[8] The Rules allows for joinder of Defendants under certain circumstances. Order 15 r 4 stipulates as follows:

4. Joinder of parties (O 15 r 4)

(1) Subject to r 5(1), two or more persons may be joined together in one action as plaintiffs or as defendants with the leave of the Court or where:

(a) if separate actions were brought by or against each of them, as the case may be, some common question of law or fact would arise in all the actions; and

(b) all rights to relief claimed in the action (whether they are joint, several or alternative) are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.

[9] Under the above provision there are 2 conditions to join the Defendants ie there must a common question of law and fact and arise out of the same transactions or series of transactions. Both the conditions are not met in this case.

[10] In this case there is no common question of law and fact between the claim against the 1st Defendant for breach of employment contract and the claim for conspiracy against the other Defendants. In fact, there is no common question of fact even between the other Defendants who are owners of different businesses supplying different good at different times to the Plaintiff involving different invoices.

[11] In this case the Court finds there is a misjoinder of both cause of action and Defendants. The effect of a misjoinder is as stated in O 15 r 6:

5. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties (O 15 r 6)

(1) A cause or matter shall not be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of any party, and the Court may in any cause or matter determine the issues or questions in dispute so far as they affect the rights and interests of the persons who are parties to the cause or matter.

(2) Subject to this rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may on such terms as it thinks just and either of its own motion or on application:

(a) order any person who has been improperly or unnecessarily made a party or who has for any r