Rule 21.Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties

Rule 21 answers a narrow but common problem: what happens when a lawsuit names the wrong mix of parties? Under older South Carolina practice, a defect in parties could support a demurrer and end the case. This rule closes that door. Misjoinder — naming someone who should not be in the case — and nonjoinder — leaving someone out who should be — are treated as fixable errors, not fatal ones. The court can add or drop a party on its own initiative or on a motion from any party, at any point in the litigation, on whatever terms are just under the circumstances.

The rule also gives the court a separate tool: severance. A claim against one party can be peeled off and litigated separately from the rest of the case. That matters when one claim is ready for trial while another needs more discovery, when a claim against a particular defendant raises issues that would confuse a jury hearing the rest of the case, or when keeping everything together would slow down the parts of the case that are ready to move.

Read together, the two sentences of Rule 21 shift the court's role from gatekeeper to manager. Instead of throwing out a case because the pleadings named an extra party or missed one, the court reshapes the party list as the case develops. A truly necessary but absent party is still handled under Rule 19, and a motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party still exists under Rule 12(b)(7) — Rule 21 is not a substitute for either, it is what keeps ordinary joinder mistakes from becoming a reason to start over.