Lazarus Chasiya v Lou Hong Qiang and The Registrar of Deeds

The applicant was employed by the 2nd respondent, of which the 1st respondent was managing director. Upon termination of the applicant's employment contract on mutually agreed terms, the 1st respondent offered to transfer property located at No. 44 Northolt Drive, Bluffhill from his name to the applicant as payment/satisfaction of the applicant's claims against the 2nd respondent (totaling $1,300,000 and other claims), on condition that the applicant take over repayment of the mortgage bond on the property. The applicant was given possession of the property and began making bond repayments. The 1st respondent subsequently claimed the applicant resiled from the agreement and instituted eviction proceedings (case No. HC 6032/02) against the applicant, also claiming certain monetary sums. The applicant then brought this joinder application seeking to join the 2nd respondent (his former employer) and the 3rd respondent (Registrar of Deeds) as parties to the main eviction case.

• Whether the 2nd and 3rd respondents should be joined as parties to the main eviction proceedings under Rule 85 of the Rules of Court
• Whether common questions of law or fact would arise if separate actions were brought
• Whether the rights to relief claimed arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions
• Whether joinder would avoid multiplicity of actions and serve the interests of justice

The application for joinder was granted in terms of the draft order. The 2nd respondent and the Registrar of Deeds were joined as parties to the main case (HC 6032/02).

Under Rule 85 of the Rules of Court, joinder of parties is appropriate where: (1) separate actions would give rise to common questions of law or fact; and (2) the rights to relief arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions. Where an employment termination, settlement agreement involving property transfer, and subsequent eviction proceedings all arise from the same factual circumstances, joinder of the employer company, its managing director, and the Registrar of Deeds serves the interests of justice by avoiding multiplicity of actions, saving time and expense, and preventing a party from having to prove the same facts repeatedly in separate proceedings.

The court emphasized the general principle that a multiplicity of actions is undesirable and that the joinder procedure was specifically designed to prevent such multiplicities. The court observed that if the applicant were to bring separate actions against the company and the director, he would be unnecessarily duplicating actions. The court also noted approvingly the broad purpose of joinder as articulated in Building Electrical & Mechanical Corp (Salisbury) Ltd v Johnson: to combine actions involving substantially the same subject matter and evidence in one trial, thereby saving the defendant from the inconvenience of proving the same facts repeatedly to obtain the remedy to which he is entitled.

This case illustrates the Zimbabwean courts' application of joinder principles under Rule 85 to promote judicial efficiency and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It demonstrates that where employment disputes, property transfer claims, and eviction proceedings arise from the same factual matrix and agreement, courts will permit joinder of the employer company, its managing director, and necessary administrative parties (like the Registrar of Deeds) in a single action. The case reinforces the principle that joinder is appropriate where common questions of law and fact arise from the same transaction or series of transactions, following established South African jurisprudence on this procedural matter.