Article 33: Consolidating the same case

Décisions de la Cour suprême interprétant cette section

1. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 21329/2556 (2013)

   No law restricts the public prosecutor from prosecuting an offence the injured person has already prosecuted, and section 33 itself contemplates the prosecutor and the injured person each bringing the same case, so the prosecutor's later charge is not a duplicate. The position is different for the injured person. Where the injured person, having already sued, then applies to join the prosecutor's case as co-plaintiff and adopts the prosecutor's charge as their own, the effect of allowing it is that the injured person has sued the defendant twice on the same matter. That is a duplicate filing barred by Civil Procedure Code section 173 paragraph 2(1) read with section 15, and leave to join is improperly granted.

   The injured person prosecuted the defendant first, and the public prosecutor later prosecuted the same matter. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutor's charge was not a duplicate: no law restricts the prosecutor from charging an offence the injured person has already charged, and section 33, which provides for consolidation where the prosecutor and the injured person have each filed the same case in the same or different courts of first instance, shows that both may do so. But the injured person then applied to join the prosecutor's case as co-plaintiff, adopting the prosecutor's charge as their own. The Court held that once the trial court allowed that, the injured person had in substance sued the defendant a second time on the same matter, which is a duplicate filing barred by Civil Procedure Code section 173 paragraph 2(1) with section 15, and it quashed the order granting leave to join.

2. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 3131/2562 (2019)

   Injured persons who file the same criminal case in two different courts as duplicate suits fall outside Section 33 and are barred, because such duplication is prohibited under the Civil Procedure Code applied through Section 15.

   Fourteen injured plaintiffs filed the same criminal case in two different courts as two overlapping suits. The court held this did not meet the criteria of Section 33 and was a prohibited duplicate filing under Civil Procedure Code Section 173(2)(1) applied through Section 15, distinguishing lawful parallel prosecution by different parties from the same party filing twice.

3. Arrêt de la Cour suprême n° 5461/2534 (1991)

   Consolidation under Section 33 is only for the convenience and speed of trial and does not relieve a plaintiff of independent procedural duties such as the duty to appear under Section 166.

   Even though the cases of plaintiffs 1 and 2 were consolidated with plaintiff 3's case, the court held consolidation was only for convenience and speed of trial. It did not free plaintiffs 1 and 2 from their duty under Section 166 to appear, so their failure to attend without excuse could still lead to dismissal of their part.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.