[1] Introduction
[2] This is a case for the division of the matrimonial property between Danielle Marilyn Etheve, Petitioner, and Desire Etheve, Respondent, pursuant to the Matrimonial Causes Act. The Matrimonial Causes Act is hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The property in dispute is the land comprised in title number PR2754 situated at Anse Kerlan, Praslin (hereinafter referred to as "Property PR2754") and the matrimonial home and two other houses standing thereon. In addition, the second property in dispute is the land comprised in title number PR2757 situated at Anse Kerlan, Praslin (hereinafter referred to as ″Property PR2757″).
[3] Background
[4] Petitioner and Respondent were married in Victoria, Mahé, on 17 April, 1993. There are two children born of their marriage. Petitioner and Respondent were married for 16 years before Petitioner filed for divorce in January, 2009. The divorce was made final on 25 July, 2011.
[5] Subsequently, Petitioner filed a petition supported by an affidavit for a division of the matrimonial property. Petitioner in her affidavit wants: ″50 % of the home and properties, namely land parcels PR2754 and PR2757″. The petition prays the court for the following ―
″a) … an order of full and lawful and beneficial ownership of land parcels PR2754 and PR2757 and the matrimonial home and houses appertained thereof for and in the entire interest of the Petitioner in accordance with rule 4 (i) (f).
b) … an order that the Petitioner be granted, forthwith, sole occupancy of land parcels PR2754 and PR2757 and the matrimonial home and the houses appertained thereon, forthwith, in accordance with rule 4 (i) (j).
AND
c) … an order restraining the Respondent from entering and remaining on land parcels PR2754 and PR2757 and the matrimonial home and the houses appertained thereon, forthwith, in accordance with rule 4 (i) (h).″.
[6] Respondent disputes the claims of Petitioner. Respondent prays this court to order that Petitioner should be awarded 5% of the total value of the property as valued by Stanley Valentin, quantity surveyor, or to dismiss the application.
[7] The evidence for Petitioner and Respondent
[8] For Petitioner the court heard evidence from Petitioner and Cecile Bastille, a quantity surveyor.
[9] The evidence of Petitioner. Petitioner testifies that when Petitioner and Respondent got married, Respondent already had a house (herein the ″first house″) and another one which was partially built with cement blocks and corrugated iron sheets on Property PR2754 (herein the ″second house″). Respondent had a small corrugated iron house on Property PR2757 (herein the ″fourth house″) and that it was there when she met Respondent. The fourth house is still there.
[10] Petitioner and Respondent stayed with the Respondent’s parents for one year after getting married while their matrimonial house (herein the ″third house″) was being built on Property PR2754. Respondent paid towards the cost of building the third house from money earned from fishing and renting out of the first house and fourth house. Petitioner’s contribution towards the third house was towards buying the fabric and sewing the cushions, putting up the curtains, buying little items for the place like for example plates. They moved into the third house when she was 7 months pregnant.
[11] Petitioner worked as a sales clerk at SACOS on Mahe and stopped upon getting married to Respondent and moving to Praslin. Petitioner started working with Respondent’s two sisters three months after getting married; Isabelle Gardet and Marilyn Etheve at Cocodemer boutique. She was paid Seychelles rupees 2500.00/- monthly and she worked there for a year before stopping when she was 5 months pregnant with her first child in November, 1994, Ginette Etheve born 19 November, 1994. Then she had her second child in April, 1996, Gustave Etheve. Respondent did not want her to go to work but to stay home and look after their two children.
[12] Respondent has a left artificial leg. Upon marriage Respondent was a fisherman; he also did carpentry and plumbing; he stopped playing music when they got married. While she took care of the children and the business Respondent was engaged in fishing for mackerel and he made good money; although she could not tell how much. Respondent went fishing on average twice a week. Respondent had a ″fiberglass boat″.
[13] Petitioner and Respondent turned the first house into a duplex house in order to extend the business three years after the marriage. It is to be noted that upon getting married to Respondent, Respondent was already renting out the first house. Petitioner states that they turned the first house into a duplex house from the money they were earning from the fishing business and Respondent also got help from his parents. She agrees that it was Respondent’s money. They completed the duplex house at the same time that the second house was completed. Respondent used his money to complete the second house. They rented out the duplex house and the second house at the same time when works carried out were completed. In 2007, Petitioner and Respondent carried out major renovation and extension works on the second house, so that they can turn it into their own home. To be noted that there is a lack of clarity as to whether Petitioner and Respondent made the second house their matrimonial house. Petitioner contributed Seychelles rupees 65,000.00/- towards renovation costs from a loan she acquired from Barclays Bank in November, 2006. Respondent co-signed the loan and Petitioner says that she paid off the loan (exhibit P4).
[14] Petitioner and Respondent were renting out three properties; the duplex house, the second house and the fourth house; they rented Seychelles rupees 3500.00/- to the government on a long term basis and Seychelles rupees 200.00/- per day to tourist. She looked after the business of renting out the three houses from 1996 until she separated from Respondent on 31 January, 2009. Petitioner wrote letters, did the bookings for tourists, did the maintenance, did the laundry, cleaning, and marketing, did the accounts, paid the bills and called the banks to check foreign currency. She reports that she had to run the business since Respondent was uneducated. She further adds that tourists sometimes came for two weeks, four months or a month. Respondent would sometimes welcome the tourists, did the maintenance, the painting and cleaning. Petitioner adds that it was Respondent who collected the money from the tourists. Petitioner and Respondent had no employees.
[15] Respondent was the breadwinner so he took care of the expenses; contributed towards the utility bills and food from the money that he earned. She also adds that Respondent would spend all collected money from the tourists on the houses’ expenses; all the money she explains was put together and went towards the houses’ expenses. Respondent bought her car to the sum of Seychelles rupees 67,000.00/- in 2002; Petitioner was still using the car until it got damaged in an accident in 2012.
[16] Petitioner also mentions that one rent money from the duplex house went into her bank account to the amount of Seychelles rupees 5500.00/-. That was her only income. Petitioner explains that she used the money to buy items for the houses such as new bed sheets or pillows and clothes and things for the two children. She also mentions that she contributed towards other expenses. The money still continued to go into her account even after her separation from Respondent in 2009 and she currently receives Seychelles rupees 5500.00/-. Petitioner states that the Seychelles rupees 5500.00/- is the money agreed for alimony upon her separation from Respondent and when Petitioner was granted custody of the two children. She states that she spends the money on the two children.
[17] Petitioner commissioned Cecil Bastille, quantity surveyor, to evaluate the properties. Cecile Bastille submitted an evaluation of the two parcels of land exhibit P5. Petitioner argues that she does not agree with Veronique Bonnelame’s estimation of the Property PR2754 at Seychelles rupees 5,000,000.00/- compared to Cecile Bastille at Seychelles rupees 11,000,000.00/-.
[18] It is to be noted that Respondent, through counsel, did not rely on the valuation of Veronique Bonnelame, but that of Stanley Valentin, a quantity surveyor.
[19] Petitioner makes the following points in cross examination. Petitioner confirms that Respondent is a fisherman, does carpentry, plumbing and denies that he stopped doing music when he got married to her. She agrees that having the artificial left leg did not stop Respondent from working and carrying a normal life. She also states that both children see their dad whenever they want to; and that other than the Seychelles rupees 5500.00/- that she gets from Respondent he also assists his children financially.
[20] Petitioner denies that she started working after her two children started Primary school and she argues that she started working for Respondent’s two sisters after three months of getting married to Respondent. She stopped after she got pregnant. She further agrees that Respondent was supporting her financially and he was the family’s breadwinner. He took care of the expenses; paid the utility bills and phone bills. She expresses that the expenses towards the third house should come from Respondent and not from her since he was the husband so he should provide. Petitioner agrees that her financial contributions were very minimal as compared to Respondent. She also agrees that Respondent bought her a car at Seychelles rupees 67,000.00/- in 2002 and she took the car when she left in 2009; and that the car is no longer in use due to an accident in 2012.
[21] Petitioner agrees that Property PR2757 does not belong to Respondent but to the heirs of Louis Hoareau; and that the only heir of Louis Hoareau is his daughter, Jeanine Hoareau, the cousin of Respondent. She adds, without more, that Respondent built the small house standing on Property PR 2757. She agrees that Respondent did not buy Property PR2754 but he inherited it from his mother; that when she met Respondent there was already a house on Property PR2757; and that she did not know when it was built but only that the Respondent was renting it out.
[22] Petitioner denies that the first house was turned into a duplex house before she met the Respondent. She claims that the house became a duplex house after their third year of marriage; and that both she and Respondent agreed to turn the house into a duplex house with the aim of extending their self-catering business. She adds that Respondent hired the architect and paid all the expenses towards the renovation while she used the rental income she was getting towards the expenses of the other two houses. It is to be noted that there is a lack of clarity about which rental income Petitioner was getting at the time in light of her evidence in chief that Respondent paid her a rental income from one of the duplex house. Petitioner, further, argues that while the second house was being renovated Respondent was renting out the first house and the fourth house.
[23] Petitioner insists that the second house was unfinished when she got married to Respondent. In the words of Petitioner ″ [i]t was only with cement blocks and already covered that is all. No window, no doors, not even -″ (Proceedings of 2 August, 2013, at 9 a.m.). The second house was only finished at the same time as their matrimonial home, the third house, was built. She, however, agrees that she did not contribute financially to the second house nor to the third house and that it was Respondent who contracted the masons, bought the materials, and paid for the transportation of materials. Petitioner states that she had no knowledge of the masons, the architects who worked on the second and third house. Petitioner adds that she took out a loan of Seychelles rupees 65, 000.00/- with Barclays Bank on 30 November, 2006, for the purpose of financing the renovation of the second home. To note Respondent’s signature as a borrower was also on the loan offer and Petitioner avers that she paid the loan in full by her and that all the money was spent on the renovation. Petitioner explains that the money was spent on buying tiles, materials on Mahe and she avers that the money did not go towards the purchase of a brand new car from abroad. She does agree that Respondent took out a loan on 17 June, 2007, and she argues that even if there was a gap of time between her loan and that of Respondent it does not mean that she did not spend the money on the house.
[24] Petitioner states that both she and Respondent did not have a licence during the time they were renting out the houses to tourists. Although at the beginning she was claiming that they were running a business of renting out the houses to tourists she then explains that those tourists were actually their friends who lived abroad and they would occasionally come to stay at the houses. Their friends will not pay a full rent but still some money came in. Sometimes they rented the houses on a long term basis. She also, further, agrees that when she met Respondent he was already renting out those houses; and that he did not start when he met her. She assisted Respondent with the business of renting out houses.
[25] The evidence of Cecile Bastille. An expert witness for the Petitioner, Cecile Bastille works as a quantity surveyor and she obtained her qualifications from Nottingham University in UK where she studied for four years. She has been in the profession since 1992, 21 years in total. Cecile Bastille has often appeared in court.
[26] Cecile Bastille confirms that she evaluated Property PR2754 and Property PR2757 (Report exhibit P5). She conducted an assessment of both properties in a day; her valuation totals to Seychelles rupees 11,111,500.00/-. She briefly explains that the sum represents the total of all the different parts; she had broken it down to give separate valuation.
[27] Cecile Bastille had valued Property PR2754 (approximately 1500 square meters) at Seychelles rupees 2,200,000.00/- million. She opines that she had based her valuation on factors such as the area of the land, proximity to the beach, flat land, and easy access. she had used the figure of Seychelles rupees 1500.00/- per square meter and according to her there are ″a lot of assessment calculations, comparison … it is not a matter of like if I put a figure where do I get the figure. There are a lot of aspects to it.″ (Proceedings of 2 August, 2013, at 9 a.m.).
[28] Cecile Bastille further explains that when valuing a property one has to consider whether that property could be easily turned into a commercial property so in the case of her evaluations she had considered the fact that the houses were being rented out. Cecile Bastille argues that it is difficult to do a comparative analysis of properties in Seychelles because ″the way the people do business, the way …. do business nothing is like authentic. Nothing is official, official. So, there is no such things as where did I get it″ (Proceedings of 2 August, 2013, at 9 a.m.). She further argues that she works from experience and also with how the market is ″moving″ and she explains that there is no specific figure she works with and it is mostly based on one’s research, accumulation of different things and different properties and she ″work[s] it backwards…do some average …and that’s how I get my figure… My figure did not come from one specific property sale″ (Proceedings of 2 August, 2013, at 9 a.m.). When cross examined to produce an explanation as to how the duplex house had been valued at Seychelles rupees 2.6 million, as to the value per square metre, Cecile Bastille argues that there is no such thing as per square metre. Cecile Bastille continues by opining that when she conducts her evaluation she goes on site and does all the measurements; she will start from the foundation, "the block work and what kinds of windows and doors are being used" (Proceedings of 2 August, 2013, at 9 a.m.). She further explains that based on experience she then prepares the index and as a quantity surveyor she knows how much it cost per square of block work, cubic metre of concrete and she does her calculations starting from ″the foundation, to block work, to roofing″ (Proceedings of 2 August, 2013, at 9 a.m.). She also adds that she also looks at the condition of the buildings, whether they are old or new and she uses her discretion to make those calculations. Cecile Bastille denies the suggestion of counsel that she has overvalued the properties on Property PR2754 and avers that the report she has written is correct.
[29] For Respondent the court heard evidence from Respondent, Maryline Etheve and Stanley Valentin, a quantity surveyor.
[30] The evidence of Respondent. Petitioner and Respondent got married on 17 April, 1993. Respondent and Petitioner resided at Respondent’s mother’s house after their marriage.
[31] Respondent confirms that he owns Property PR2754. At the passing away of his mother the land was not registered in his name since it had not been surveyed yet. The land was subsequently transferred in his name due to the fact that he had already built a house on it and it was also his mother’s wish for him to have the parcel of land. His siblings therefore transferred their inheritance rights to him and the land was transferred to him in 2007. Respondent consequently relinquished his inheritance right to parcel PR1503 to his siblings. He reported that Property PR2757 (exhibit R6) is owned by Louis Hoareau and the executrix is Jeanine Marguerite Hoareau, Respondent’s cousin.
[32] Prior to getting married to Petitioner he was a fisherman, a diver, a handicraft artisan, guitarist, and a singer; he sang in hotels.
[33] Respondent is also a carpenter and a plumber. Respondent is disabled, his left leg is shorter than his right; and he has had an artificial leg since 1990. The artificial leg does not stop him from working; he sells his fish on his bicycle.
[34] Property PR2754 has three houses; he explains that his mother Elodie Etheve nee Hoareau gave him permission to build the first duplex house (first house). The purpose was to rent out the duplex house. Mr Raza Victor, a mason by profession, was instructed to build the duplex house in 1985. He undertook the carpentry and plumbing work on the duplex house. The duplex house was constructed and completed in 1985 at the same time the new Praslin airport was being constructed; the house was financed by Respondent and his mother. When completed the duplex house was occupied by two Nigerian tenants by the name of George and Fabien, who were working at the airport, both had separate rooms. Respondent explains that he was living with his mother at that time. Application for electricity was made to Seychelles Electricity Corporation Limited on the 24 September, 1985, and it was approved 16 of December, 1985, exhibit R9.
[35] Respondent then states that the second house was built by Pierre Chrysostome. Pierre was the mason and Respondent undertook the carpentry and plumbing work. The second house was completed in 1992 before he had met Petitioner. Respondent financed the construction of the second house from the money he was earning from fishing, handy craft work, from singing in the hotel and also from the Seychelles rupees 7000.00/- rent he was earning from the duplex house. He paid towards the cost of transportation of materials to the site. Respondent lived with his mother at Anse Kerlan Praslin, while the second house was being built and upon completion he rented out the house to the Ministry of Health. The Respondent states that he rented out the second house before his marriage to Petitioner.
[36] Respondent rejects Petitioner’s claim that the borrowed Seychelles rupees 65,000.00/- from Barclays bank went towards the cost of the renovation of the second house on Property PR2754 in July, 2007. According to Respondent Petitioner took out the loan to buy a container to ship a car from abroad she had received as a gift from someone; although exhibit P4 notes house extension as the reason. Respondent co-signed for the Seychelles rupees 65000.00/- loan out of the goodness of his heart and for his two children; and that he stresses that he did not receive any part of the loan. Respondent, therefore, avers that Petitioner did not contribute financially towards the renovation of the second house, nor was she involved in the decision to renovate the house. According to Respondent Petitioner never visited the building site, which was an approximate distance of 100 metres away.
[37] Respondent explains that he decided to renovate the second house with the aim of making more money on the property. Respondent borrowed a loan of Seychelles rupees 200,000.00/- from Barclays Bank on 14 June, 2007, (exhibit R14), as well as he received financial support from his father, his sister Isabelle Gardette and his brother France Felice Etheve. Renovation works started after 12 July, 2007, and the mason who undertook the renovation was Mr. Kenneth Cadence.
[38] The third two bedroom house was built in 1994 by Regis Uranie; it was built after Respondent got married to Petitioner. It is conceded by Petitioner that she was not involved in any way in the construction of the third house.
[39] Respondent explains that it was his mother and father who provided for Petitioner while they were living with them until they moved into the third house in 1994. When they moved into the third house Respondent paid for the utility bills and food until his separation from the Petitioner in 2009. Respondent states that he cooked twice a day, prepared tea for the two children in the morning; he also states that he provided the two children with all their necessities; Respondent made breakfast and bathed the two children. When his children were sick both him and Petitioner took the children to the doctor.
[40] Petitioner did not work until their two children started Primary school, according to him either Primary 3 or 4. Petitioner worked for 8 hours from 9a.m. to 5p.m. and that when she would come home the two children were fed and bathed.
[41] Respondent emphasises that he did not conduct any tourist business other than invite three friends over when the houses were vacant and he states that he never had any licence to rent a self-catering business. Respondent has a licence for fisherman (exhibit R7) and a net fishing ("sener") licence (exhibit R8).
[42] Respondent states that his matrimonial relationship with Petitioner had not been good since 2003. To note that the divorce petition supports that fact that Petitioner had not cohabited with Respondent since 2003, it states that she was living under the same roof as Respondent since she did not have anywhere else to go.
[43] Respondent makes the following points in cross examination. Petitioner left her job after her employer SACOS had informed her that they will transfer her to Praslin but she had to stay on Mahe for another five months.
[44] Respondent cooked twice a day, prepared tea for the two children in the morning; he also states that he provided the two children with all their necessities; Respondent made breakfast and bathed the two children. Petitioner helped clean the house.
[45] On cross examination it was put to Respondent that when the two children started primary school the Petitioner worked for his two sisters, Isabelle Gardette but nee Etheve and Merlyn Etheve and that she was employed until 30 October, 2010, and earned a salary of Seychelles rupees 3500.00/- per month. Respondent says that he was only aware of the employment and not the salary so he does not know what Petitioner did with the money. Respondent insisted that Petitioner did not make any financial contributions towards the house expenses.
[46] Respondent agrees Petitioner was receiving Seychelles rupees 5500.00/-, paid directly into her account 6 to 7 years before their separation in 2009. He confirms that she is still receiving that allowance. He still gives his two children money when they come to Praslin and he tops up their mobiles every Friday. He adds though that he did not know what Petitioner did with the allowance and he then explains that he still gave her the Seychelles rupees 5500.00/- even if there had been a breakdown in their relationship since 2003. Respondent states that he purchased a second hand car Subaru J10 for Petitioner worth Seychelles rupees 67000.00/- in 2002 with the hope that their relationship will get better.
[47] From 1993 to July 2009 Petitioner did not contribute towards the three houses; the construction, maintenance and renovation. He also states that he had Seychelles rupees 100,000.00/- of his own savings that went towards financing the construction of the first house.
[48] Petitioner made him stopped playing music so they can spend the evenings together, he says that he stopped laying fishing traps because he was tired but he continued with the fish nets and the cocodemer business. Respondent denies that he was an alcoholic and was violent. He categorically denies that he stopped playing music, fishing, and stayed at home while Petitioner looked after the two children and the business. He further explains that his cocodemer business started after getting married to Petitioner and he started his handicraft work before he got married and he continued during his marriage. He also explains that it was when he stopped the fish trap business that he started the cocodemer business; he got 25 cocodemer per day from PDF and 40 per month from Curieuse and he sold the nuts for Seychelles rupees 100 per kilo. Each cocodemer weighed 5 kilos and he earned Seychelles rupees 500. Respondent started the business after his marriage to Petitioner and he adds that only the two children would help him while Petitioner would sit under the veranda cleaning her nails.
[49] Respondent was not married to Petitioner when the duplex house was built. The duplex house was the first house.
[50] Respondent states that since he rented out the houses on a long term basis with the Ministry of Education he does not see how Petitioner did all the greetings, clean the houses, run the business and look after the family. He claims that he only rented out the houses to his friends from overseas when the two houses were unoccupied.
[51] Respondent paid insurance to SACOS for the fourth house on Property PR2757 for a long time but he stopped paying because the house was not his. The Respondent denies that he was the owner and is still the owner of the house and that he had any interest in the house; he states that Jeanine Hoareau is renting out the house and Neville occupies the house. He denies that him and Petitioner repaired and renovated the house after the tsunami.
[52] Respondent adds that he co-signed the loan with the hope that Petitioner will get back with him.
[53] Respondent has got evidence that Petitioner sent money to Eric Morison and that it was only later that he discovered that she was in fact sending money from the Seychelles rupees 65,000.00/- loan that he co-signed with her.
[54] On re-examination he avers that the second house built by Mr. Chrysostomes Victor was completed in 1992 and the other rooms were added after 1992. There are now a total of four bedrooms. Respondent started renting out eight years before he married Petitioner and the duplex house was rented by two Nigerians gentlemen. Isabelle and Felice helped him pay off the loan of Seychelles rupees 200,000.00/-; Seychelles rupees 90, 000.00/- and Seychelles rupees 50, 000.00/- were transferred in his account (exhibit R15). Respondent avers that it was his two siblings who helped him and not Petitioner.
[55] Respondent reiterates that he gave the Petitioner the Seychelles rupees 5500.00/- with the hope that their relationship will improve. Respondent states that he was not aware that there was another man involved when he co-signed the loan in 2006.
[56] The evidence of Stanley Valentin. On examination, Stanley Valentin confirms that his confirmed profession is licensed quantity surveyor and building services engineer. He has been practising since 2006 and has been working privately for seven years. Stanley Valentin confirms that he had previously testified in court and has provided property evaluations for such cases.
[57] Stanley Valentin was instructed by Respondent to evaluate all properties on Property PR2754 of 1469 square metres at Anse Kerlan, Grand Anse Praslin. He was not instructed by Respondent to evaluate Property PR2757. He produces the Property evaluation report dated 12 August, 2013, as exhibit R16 and the breakdown of the evaluation referred to as the "quantitative analysis" or to what is technically known as an ″analytical analysis″ as exhibit R17. An "analytical analysis", as explains by Stanley Valentin, provides a closer estimate of the value of a property than if one were to use "square metre or unit base methods". The process of his evaluation involved taking all the measurements, the use of any data required including visual data and also using survey documents.
[58] Stanley Valentin used the identical estimate method on the properties on Property PR2754; which he explains means "break[ing] the house into substructure, superstructure meaning walls, roofing and ceiling" (Proceedings of Tuesday 16 December, 2014, at 9 a.m.). He explains on examination that in his evaluation "in the cases of sites, usually we take the walls; because where you got walls technically you should have a foundation. So, use a wall to get foundations, I have break it down from excavations…” (Proceedings of Tuesday 16 December, 2014, at 9 a.m.). He further his explanation by saying that he has “taken excavations, fumigations, concreting, super structure in terms of frame, frame meaning all beams, columns, lintols-…” (Proceedings of Tuesday 16 December, 2014, at 9 a.m.). Stanley Valentin continues explaining that he also used ─
"… openings, meaning doors, windows … finishes meaning screed, tiling if there is any. So, fittings, kitchen cabinets, services, disposal system- but then usually there are two approaches, you can approach the building as it is now. Let say the state is now, or I can take the building as new. When I push my evaluation I take it as new. That is much easier for me to work on and apportion to the quantities, I have placed the rates, which is market rates. Then I reach the cost, summarised it into the sum, total sum and then from thereon if there is any additional value of the building, okay ecstatic, lets say in cases where by we used TNJ varnish and so on or if there is any deficiency to that building, if the paintings gone off or any problems with the roofing, then I either add value or devalue it, depending on the circumstances on the site. So, then I reach the actual market value …". Proceedings of Tuesday 16 December, 2014, at 9 a.m.).
[59] Dwelling House number 1. Dwelling house number 1, measured at 222 square metres, is the bigger house of the three houses. It is valued at Seychelles rupees 2,351,735.77.00/- using a rate less than Seychelles rupees 13,000.00/- per square metres (ref to House number 2 in exhibit P5, Cecile Bastille’s report which is valued at Seychelles rupees 4,128,000.00/- using a rate of Seychelles rupees 18,736.00/- per square metres). To be noted Stanley Valentin states that the average construction cost per square metres on Praslin is in the region of Seychelles rupees 12,000.00/- to Seychelles rupees 13,000.00/- per square metres. Stanley Valentin opines that considering the rates, description and built of the house the value estimated by Cecile Bastille is too high. In his opinion the total value was also affected by the fact that the roof is leaking and tiling (exhibit R16, pg.5 for the photographs).
[60] The duplex house; House number 2. The duplex house, measured at 160 square metres, is valued at Seychelles rupees 1,722,661.48/- and it is to be noted that the same method used to value House number 1 was used with House number 2 (exhibit R16). In