Rubina Ahmed & 3 others v Guardian Bank Ltd (Sued in its capacity as a successor in Title to First National Finance Bank Ltd)

The court had power under Order 1 Rule 10(2) to add a party at any stage of pending proceedings, and the judge correctly found the company may be a necessary party. However, delay and prejudice were relevant considerations. The respondent held unchallenged final judgments against the company that re-litigation would torpedo, and the delay was unexplained. The judge's conclusions were sufficiently explained and not capricious, so the appellate court would not substitute its own weighting of factors.

Amendment under Order 8 rule 5(1) is a discretionary power liberally exercised, but the applicant must act in good faith and the amendment must not cause injustice to the other side. The appellants had already amended in 1997 and then slept for 15 years without explaining the delay or when the new particulars came to their knowledge. The judge balanced the injustice of allowing against refusing the amendment, and the amendments also lost relevance once joinder was refused.

The court adopted Madan, JA's classic formulation in United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs East African Underwriters (Kenya) Ltd. Because the appeal turned entirely on whether discretion was exercised judiciously, the court asked only whether the judge misdirected himself or misapprehended the law or failed to consider relevant matters. Finding the considerations of delay, good faith and prejudice relevant and properly weighed, the court declined to interfere even though it might have given them different weight.