Civil Procedure

Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd v Seychelles Land Transport Agency (CC 39/2014) [2020] SCSC 270 (08 May 2020);

TWOMEY CJ

The brief facts of the Case

[1]       The Plaintiff, a civil and building contractor, entered into an agreement with the Defendant, the land transport authority, in 2009 to provide materials and equipment for road resurfacing works at Praslin, Seychelles with the labour for the works to be provided by the Defendant.

Lau-Tee v Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority (MA 274/2018 (arising in CS 71/2018)) [2020] SCSC 269 (07 May 2020);

CAROLUS J Background[1]       Virginia Lau-tee is the Defendant in CS71/2018 (the “Principal Suit”) which has been brought against her by the Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority as Plaintiff. She has filed this application (MA274/2018) for an Order joining her husband Samuel Lau Tee as 2nd defendant in the Principal Suit.[2]       In terms of the Principal Suit, the Plaintiff/Respondent avers that Defendant/Applicant is the owner of land Parcel Title No. S5256 which was encumbered with a number of restrictions including a loan with Housing Finance Company.

Chetty v The Estate of Regis Albert & Ors (CS 131/2018) [2020] SCSC 268 (08 May 2020);

TWOMEY CJ

The Pleadings

[1]       The Plaintiff, by amended Plaint dated 3 May 2018, states that she is the registered owner of Parcels C5773 and C5769 (hereinafter the Property) situated at Anse Royale, Mahé and that the Property were subdivisions of Parcel C5767, the latter being a subdivision of Parcel C1546.

Villemont v Dubignon & Anor (MA 313/2018 (arising in CS 24/2017)) [2020] SCSC 206 (26 March 2020);

TWOMEY CJ [1]       The parties entered into an agreement by consent on 24 January 2018 in which it was agreed that after valuation of Parcel V4105 the Plaintiff would be entitled to twenty-five percent of its value and to the movables in the house on the property. It was also a term of the judgment that thereafter the Respondents would buy the Plaintiff’s share in the property within a period of six months from the date of the valuation.

Fontaine v Amesbury (CA 16/2019 (arising in CS 3/2017)) [2020] SCSC 231 (02 April 2020);

PILLAY J [1]       The Appellant appeals against the order of the Learned Magistrate ordering him to pay SCR 5, 000.00 in costs to the Respondent before the next hearing date.[2]       The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are that:(1) Despite being informed in advance of the predicament of the Appellant’s Counsel the Learned Magistrate failed and refused to stand the matter down for 2 hours.(2) The Learned Magistrate erred in law when he gave no lawful reasons for postponing the case to July 2020 in view of the fat that the matter was set for 2 consecutive days.(3) The Magistr

Freminot v Pauline (MA 169/2019 (arising in DS159/2016)) [2020] SCSC 190 (10 March 2020);

CAROLUS J Background[1]       The Parties in this matter are divorced and the conditional order of divorce granted in the divorce proceedings was made absolute on 9th June 2017.[2]       The applicant has now filed an application for “division in kind of matrimonial property” which was filed on 21st May 2019. Counsel for the respondent at the time Mr.

Pages