Property Law

Ex-Parte Juliana Rose (SCA 25/2017 (Appeal from Supreme Court Decision CS 206/2016)) [2019] SCCA 48 (17 December 2019);



F. MacGregor (PCA)


1.   This is a case in which the Appellant is appealing against the judgment of the Master delivered in Civil Slide No. 206/2016 delivered on 16 June 2017. The Appellant is the niece of the late Francois Clement Ah-Kon who died testate on 2 October 2016. Before his death, the deceased made a will in which he appointed the Appellant as the beneficiary of all his properties and rights.


PTD Limited v Zialor (SCA 32/2017 (Appeal from Supreme Court Decision CS 46/2013) ) [2019] SCCA 47 (17 December 2019);




F. Robinson (J.A)



[1]        This an appeal against the judgment of a trial Judge of the Supreme Court, who declined to grant a mandatory injunction compelling the respondent (the defendant then) to remove the two buildings from the land comprised in title no. PR344 at Anse Volbert, Praslin. The land comprised in title no. PR344 is hereinafter referred to as the "Property". The respondent resides in one of the buildings, and operates a business from the other.

Hortense v Songoire (SCA 36/2017 (Appeal from Supreme Court Decision CS 106/2016)) [2019] SCCA 46 (17 December 2019);

F. Robinson (J.A)

1. This is an appeal against the decision of a learned trial Judge of the Supreme Court who found that the signing of the transfer was obtained through fraudulent means. Consequently, the learned trial Judge made an order that the bare ownership of the Property shall be registered in the name of the respondent. He ordered the registration of the appellant as the owner of the usufructuary interest in the Property.

Barrado v Labonté (MC53/2017) [2019] SCSC 657 (31 July 2019);


Property law: Division in kind – approval of proposed subdivision –order accordingly.


1.     Section 107(2) of the Immovable Property (Judicial Sales) Act (Cap 94) provides that:

“Any co-owner of an immovable property may also by petition to a judge ask that the property be divided in kind or, if such division is not possible, that it be sold by licitation.”


2.               In this regard, the Applicant applied in August 2017 for the partition of Parcel T 1379 in which he had an undivided half share with the Respondent. His application is comprised of only four paragraphs, namely that:

Figaro v Mathiot (CS 115/2017) [2019] SCSC 596 (15 July 2019);


[1] The Plaintiff and the Defendant are co-owners in indivision of a parcel of land on which a house is situated. This is land title 8806 (hereafter "the Property"). The land and house were purchased and funded by a loan from the Housing Finance Company (hereafter "HFC'). It is the Plaintiff's contention that he solely repaid the loan and that payment has been completed. This was deducted directly from his salary. The Defendant on the other hand bought furniture that is found in the house.