JUDGMENT

Edgar Joseph Jr. SCJ:

Broadly stated, the issue which arises for decision in this appeal is: what is the ambit of the Court's power, under O. 8, r. 6 (2) (b) of the Subordinate Courts Rules, 1980, [equivalent to and in pari materia with O. 15, r. 6 (2) (b) of the Rules of the High Court 1980], upon the application of the defendant, in a running down case, to compel the plaintiff to add, a second defendant, against whom the plaintiff does not wish to proceed ?

In this judgment, all references to the provisions of the Rules of the High Court ("RHC") must be taken as also referring, where the context so requires, to the equivalent provisions of the Subordinate Courts Rules ("SCR").

To put matters in their correct perspective, it is necessary to reproduce the provisions of O. 8, r. 6 (2) of the SCR; it says this:

6(2) 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 reason ceased to be a proper or necessary party, to cease to be a party; (b) order any person who ought to have been j