Property Law

Ladouceur v Vannier (CA 21/2019 ) [2020] SCSC 372 (03 July 2020);


Property law : Rent Board : Jurisdiction of the Rent Board on issue of droit de superficie : whether application to the Rent Board is res judicata : Plea in limine litis on the requirement of leave to appeal : Rent Board has no jurisdiction to determine land rights or ownership hence has no jurisdiction to determine whether the Appellant has a droit de superficie. The principle of res judicata does not arise : Rent Board did not err in placing emphasis on the letter of the Tenants Right Registrar.


Chetty v Chetty (CS 253/2018 ) [2020] SCSC 366 (02 July 2020);


Civil Procedure : Succession : quotite disponible : preliminary issues raised : commencement of proceedings against incorrect defendants : failure of plaint to disclose cause of action : value of estate not proved thus quotite disponible not determinable : certain relief not competent to be claimed from defendants : plea in litis accepted on conditions. 

Lesperance v Rose (CS 07/2018) [2020] SCSC 304 (09 June 2020);


Property Law: how can parties who were in living in concubinage terminate their joint ownership of property : to succeed, plaintiff has to show that detriment was without lawful cause, that plaintiff had no other action available, and that detriment was not plaintiff's own fault. Plaintiff failed to satisfy these three elements. 


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


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.

Dogley v Camille (MC 96/2019) [2020] SCSC 263 (24 April 2020);


[1]       The Petitioner in the matter seeks an order for the Respondent to pay the Petitioner one half of the value of the Parcel S3542 with the house thereon.

[2]       The Petitioner avers that the Respondent was his concubine and the co-owner in title of the other half share of parcel number S3542.

[3]       He further avers that the parties are now separated and he does not wish to remain as co-owner in indivision together with the Respondent.