The rules governing party participation are crucial for ensuring that all necessary and interested parties are involved in a dispute, thereby promoting comprehensive and final resolution.
Intervention
Intervention allows a person who was not originally a party to a civil dispute to join the proceedings to protect their rights and interests. This can occur either at the request of a defendant or on the intervener’s own initiative, as indicated by CPC Article 41.
A third party seeking to intervene must demonstrate that the decision to be rendered in the ongoing dispute will directly affect their rights and interests. This means the decision must directly impact their rights and benefits, and it should not be possible to prevent this impact by filing a new, separate lawsuit. The intervener must clearly state how and in what manner the decision in the case between the original parties will affect their rights, as per CPC Article 41(2). They bear the burden of proving this with detailed reasons. The purpose of intervention is not to prolong or delay the litigation.
The Supreme Court has further clarified aspects of intervention. Any third party claiming an interest in a case where other parties are litigating can intervene before a judgment is rendered. The application for intervention must detail the reasons for the claim, especially the nature of their right. The court must first determine if the intervener has a right to participate; if not, they are dismissed, but if they do, they become a party, and the entire case is examined, including the intervener’s rights, to reach an appropriate decision. In disputes concerning houses and possessions, an intervener presenting documents proving their right to intervene should not have their application rejected simply because they haven’t provided a certificate of ownership or possession, as the right to intervene is paramount.
Third Parties Who Must Be Joined
Certain third parties must be joined in litigation to ensure a complete and effective resolution, particularly when their rights or obligations are directly implicated.
Mandatory Joinder in Immovable Property Disputes
In cases seeking to reclaim and take possession of immovable property, all individuals who have settled on the property or claim rights and interests in it (e.g., tenants) must be joined as parties to the dispute to ensure a valid judgment. If these parties are not joined, either at the plaintiff’s request or by court order, the judgment rendered on the merits of the case will be overturned, and a decision must be made after these necessary parties have participated and litigated. CPC Article 36(4) mandates that when a person files a lawsuit to reclaim immovable property held by others, they must join all individuals who have settled on the property for any reason or under any circumstance. This includes individuals claiming ownership or rights through rent or any other means, whose rights or interests could be affected by the judgment. The primary purpose of this provision is to ensure that parties whose rights, interests, or obligations might be affected by a judgment are not excluded from the litigation [CPC Art. 36(4)].
Impact on Multiple Parties
When a lawsuit is filed and its cause affects the rights and interests of many people, and one or some of them file the lawsuit, if the decision or judgment in the case directly or indirectly affects the rights and interests of those who are not parties to the dispute, the court must order these non-party individuals to join the litigation, as per CPC Articles 39(1) and 40(2). The spirit of these provisions indicates that a judgment or decision rendered without these parties being joined will have no effect. If the party to be joined is a defendant, the court can order them to join the litigation and present their defense and response to the claim.
Payment Responsibility in “Equb” (Traditional Savings Group) Cases
In cases involving “Equb” money, individuals responsible for payment have a contractual obligation to prove that the money was paid to the “Equb” member, their representative, or a person permitted by the rules. If the “Equb” rules do not permit payment to a guarantor, then the guarantor who received the money can only be released from liability if they join the litigation as a co-defendant under CPC Article 40(2) and prove that the money reached or was given to the “Equb” member. Therefore, the dispute should be resolved by joining the guarantor as a defendant.
Third Parties – Impleader
Impleader is a procedural mechanism that allows a defendant to bring a third party into the litigation who might share liability or be responsible for indemnifying the defendant for the damages claimed by the plaintiff. This is intended to prevent subsequent lawsuits by resolving all related claims in a single proceeding.
CPC Article 43(1) allows a defendant to claim contribution or indemnity from another person. “Contribution” applies when multiple parties have joint and several liability for the cause of action, and the plaintiff has sued only one of them (as per Civil Code Article 1897). The defendant can request that the other liable third party be joined to share the payment. “Indemnity” applies when the defendant, if found liable, has a party (like an insurance company) who will cover the judgment amount on their behalf. The defendant can request this party to intervene and litigate.
A third party brought into the litigation can only litigate with the defendant who brought them in, not directly with the plaintiff. If a third party summoned under CPC Article 43 claims from the outset that they have no legal or contractual relationship with the defendant, they should not be made a party to the litigation. Such a dispute should be resolved in a separate lawsuit, not within the plaintiff’s existing case. The purpose of CPC Article 43 is not to consolidate all such disputes into one file. Allowing a third party to litigate a claim they deny from the beginning would unnecessarily increase the time and cost for the plaintiff’s case.
In cases involving vehicle accidents, if a lawsuit for damages is filed against a car owner, and the car was sold, the buyer should be joined in the litigation if they had possession of the car at the time of the accident, even if the ownership transfer was not completed. While both the vehicle owner and the person using the vehicle at the time of the accident may be liable, the ultimate responsibility for compensation falls on the person who was in possession and using the vehicle.
Regarding jurisdiction, a regional court handling a dispute, when presented with a relevant impleader application involving an institution (organization) registered by the federal government, does not have the jurisdiction to hear the case by joining the impleaded party. The regional court should close the file, stating that the case should be heard by a court with jurisdiction to handle the impleaded party, and dismiss the litigants [CPC Art. 9, 231(1)ለ]. Furthermore, if a party joined in a dispute makes the case a federal matter, but the first-instance court heard the case without jurisdiction and rendered a judgment, and this party accepted the judgment and withdrew from the appeal process, it is not appropriate to rule that the case was a federal matter from the outset, especially if the remaining parties cannot make it a federal case.