U. UGANDA TRADING CO. v. JINJA CASH STORES (SttemDax, 3) UGANDA GENERAL TRADING CO. LTD. STORES LTD. AND ANOTHER (Hin Count of Ucanps ar KaMpata (Sheridan, J), April 27, 1965.) Civ Case No, 431. oF 1964 Practice —Parties—Misjoinder of defendants—Misjoinder of causes of action — Right 10 relief apising out of sanie act or transaction or series of acts oF transactions—Claim against frst defendant for price of goods sold and delivered—Claim against second defendant for declaration under Bulk Sales Ordinance (Cap. 215)—Declaration for setting azide sale of three lorries to second defendant by fist defendant-—Whether misjoinder of parties and causes of action—Civil Procedure Rules, 0.1, 1.3 U). plaintiff filed a suit claiming Shs. $6,649/36 against the first defendant the amount due for goods sold and delivered and cash advanced. Against the second defendant the plaintiff's claim was for a declaration setting aside ‘the transfer of three lorries to the'second defendant by the first defendant, in ‘contravention of the Bulk Sales Ordinance. For the frst defendant a preliminary ‘objection was taken that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had ‘improperly joined separate defendants and Separate causes of action against different defendants in one sit. It was submitted that no common question of fact or law would arise if separate suits were brought and that the right to relief against each defendant was based on different facts. Held: (i) under the Bulk Sales Ordinance the plaintifT in his capacity as ‘a creditor of the fist defendant was entiiéd to have any redrest against. the second defendant as transferee of the lorries and a common question of law (of fact would have arisen if separate suits were brought. (i there was no misjoinder of the defendants or causes of action and the suit ‘was maintainable. Preliminary objection overruled ‘Cases referred to: (1) Thee Bank of India Lid. v. Shah, 1965) E.A. 18 (U), 2) Sultanaily Rarzanall v. Nurdin Madhanji & Brothers and Another (1953), TULR. 37, ‘M, L. Patel for the plantif RS. Dave for the defendants. April 27. SHERIDAN, J.: Counsel for the first defendants has taken the preliminary point of law that the suit is not maintainable as the plain’ has, improperly joined separate defendants and separate causes of action against diferent defendants in one suit. The plaintif’s claim against the first defendants is for Shs, 56,649/36 being the amount due for goods sold and delivered and cath advanced by virtue of a ‘mutual account during the years 1961, 1962 and. 1963. Their claim against the second defendant is to set aside the transfer of three lorries to her by the first efendants on January 10, 1964, in contravention of the Bulk Sales Ordinance (Cap. 215). Counsel relies on the Civil Procedure Rules O. 1, r, 3 which provides: “All persons may be joined as defendants against whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of470 EASTERN AFRICA LAW REPORTS 119651 BA, acts of transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or, in the alternative, where, if separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of aw oF fact would arise”. He submits that before defendants can be joined two conditions must be ful filled: (1) the right to relief must arise out ofthe same ac or transaction or series of acts or transactions and (2) if separate suits were brought a common question $f law or fact would arise. He submits that no common question,of law or fact arises in a suit against the first defendants for the value of goods sold and delivered and against the second defendant for contravention of the provisions ‘of the Ordinance. The right to relief against each defendaat is based on different facts and the time when the causes of action arise would be different in the two suits. Counsel for the plaintiff replies that itis only in his capacity as creditor of the first defendant that he can have any redress against the second defendant tunder the Ordinance and it is that which provides the link between the debt tnd the bulk sale, a common question of law or fact. On common sense grounds, T would say that this should be so and that itis all part ofa series of transactions. In my ruling in The Bank of India Led. v. Shah (1), considered O. 1, . 3 and souight to distinguish the cases which have been cited again in the present appli- cation, There is nothing in the Order which provides that the causes of action ‘may not arise at different times. Nor is it a bar to joinder that different reliefs are sought, ‘It is mot necessary that all the defendants should be interested in all the reliefs and transactions comprised in the suit or that the liability of all defendants should be the same". Currausy's Tist Cope oF Civit. PROCEDURE (ith Edn}, Vol. 2, p. 1865. In Sultanally Ramzanali v. Nurdin Madhanji and Brothers (2) the plaintiff sued the first defendant under a promissory note and against the second defendant he claimed that subsequent to the making of the note the second defendant bought the entire business and stock of the first defendants in contravention of the Bulk Sales Ordinance and he asked forthe sale to beset aside as against him, It was held that the onus of proving that a person seeking to set aside a sale under the Ordinance was a creditor prior to the sale lay upon that person and that the plaintiff there had failed to discharge the onus but no question of mis- Joinder was raised. Why should the plaintiff seck to prove that he is a creditor ‘when he can conveniently do so by suing both defendants inthe same suit? In my view the preliminary objection fails. The plaintiff will have any costs occasioned by it. Preliminary objection overruled Advocates: Manushal Patel & Son, Kampala (for the plaintiff); Pavel and Dave, Kampala (for the defendants). A