IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES
BUGGY AND JEEP Rentals (Proprietary) Limited
United represented by its director Ms. Betty Michel		Petitioner

V

THE LAND REGISTRAR						Respondent

And now between

DANDELE PULCIANI						Applicant

V
BUGGY AND JEEP RENTALS (PROPRIETARY) 
Ltd									Petitioner Respondent

THE LAND REGISTRAR						Respondent

Civil Side No. 270 of 2010

Mrs Lucie Pool Attorney at Law for Applicant
Mr. Serge Rouillon Attorney at Law for the Petitioner Respondent
Ms. Samantha Aglae State Counsel for the Respondent
RULING BurhanJ

This is an application by the aforementioned applicant Daniele Pulciani, to intervene in this writ application before court The aforementioned petitioner respondent Buggy and Jeep Rental (Proprietary) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) is seeking a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent, the Land
Registrar to register the transfer deeds in respect of lands bearing title No. T1752 and T 2395 as there is no lawful reason or justification for the respondent to withhold such registration.

It is to be noted that originally there were two applications to intervene in the said case. One been made by Daniele Pulciani and the other by Anarea Colucci who as per the schedule of the said agreement are both beneficial owners and principals of the said company. The schedule of the aforementioned Nominee Services Agreement further refers to the feet that Mr. Daniel Pulciani, Andrea Colucci and

What is in issue in this instant case is the issue of a writ of Mandamus to compel or command the registrar to register the transfers to the petitioner in this case. It is apparent that as the registrar has acted on the applications of the aforementioned persons to issue tine restriction order, if the restriction order is to he set aside, it is absolutely essential that the parties who made the application for the restriction order be made parties to this application for writ and be heard in order that court could effectively and completely adjudicate on the application made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions going into the legal aspects and merits of the case before court It is too premature to consider and decide on these issues as the present ruling is only to determine whether the applicant be permitted to intervene in this case. The objections of the petitioner are therefore dismissed with costs.
M.NBURHAN 
JUDGE