Adrienne v Pillay (CS 20/2003) [2003] SCSC 24 (5 November 2003)

Adrienne v Pillay (CS 20/2003) [2003] SCSC 24 (5 November 2003)

The Defendant, being a third party to the alleged contract of consent to build, cannot invoke the prohibition against oral evidence under Article 1341 of the Civil Code. The objection to oral evidence is therefore overruled.

Citation
[2003] SCSC 24
Parties
Plaintiff: Adrienne; Defendant: Pillay
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
5 November 2003
Case Number
CS 20/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Objection
Outcome
Objection overruled
Legal Topics
Droit De Superficie, Oral Evidence, Consent to Build, Article 1341 Civil Code, Third Party Rights
Source Language
English
Property Law Evidence Droit De Superficie Oral Evidence Consent to Build Article 1341 Civil Code Third Party Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adrienne

Plaintiff

Pillay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Ruling on Evidentiary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral evidence is admissible to prove consent to build under Article 1341 of the Civil Code when the defendant is a third party to the alleged contract

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant, being a third party to the alleged contract of consent to build, cannot invoke the prohibition against oral evidence under Article 1341 of the Civil Code. The objection to oral evidence is therefore overruled.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled

Orders

  • Oral evidence regarding consent to build is admissible.