Seychelles Judgment

Court of Appeal

Alexis Monthy v Miranda Esparon (SCA 29 of 2010) [2012] SCCA 8 (9 May 2012)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court corrected the parcel title number from H 2257 to H 2557 to give effect to its manifest intention and rectify the accidental error.

Court disposition

judgment corrected

Orders

  • Title of the parcel at paragraph 18(i) and (ii) of the judgment dated 13th April 2012 shall read as H 2557 instead of H 2257.

02

Material facts

Parties

Alexis Monthy

Appellant Counsel: Mr. D. Sabino

Miranda Esparon

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Quashed Monetary Award: SCR 70,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Appeal / Post Judgment Correction

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the title number in the judgment should be corrected due to a typographical error

Party arguments

Applicant
The Registrar General of Lands notified the court of a typographical error in the parcel title number in the judgment.
Respondent
Respondent was absent and unrepresented.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    rule 13(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2005 read with rule 5

    Court may correct accidental errors in judgments to reflect its manifest intention.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court corrected the parcel title number from H 2257 to H 2557 to give effect to its manifest intention and rectify the accidental error.

Court disposition

judgment corrected

  • Title of the parcel at paragraph 18(i) and (ii) of the judgment dated 13th April 2012 shall read as H 2557 instead of H 2257.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal

Judgment

[2012] SCCA 8

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES Alexis Monthy Appellant VS Miranda Esparon Respondent SCA No: 29/2010 BEFORE: Anthony F. T. Fernando. JA Counsel: Appellant, represented by Mr. D. Sabino Respondent absent and unrepresented Date of Hearing: 10th May 2012 Date of Ruling: 10th May 2012 Anthony F. T. Fernando JA.

RULING 1. The Judgment in this case was delivered by this Court on the 13th of April 2012.

2. One of the orders made in the said judgment was to the effect: “We order the Registrar of Lands to restore ownership of Title H 2257 to both parties namely Alexis Monthy and Miranda Esparon.” 3. We also quashed the decision of the learned trial Judge including the award of SR 70,000 he made in this case, as the monetary value of the Appellant’s share, in the property co- owned by the parties. The parcel was described in our Judgment as H 2257. 4.

5. It has now been brought to our notice by the Registrar General of Lands that the title of the parcel has been incorrectly stated in the Order we made at paragraph 18 of the Judgment. It should be H 2557 and not H 2257. This is undoubtedly a typing error as elsewhere in the body of the Judgment the title of the parcel has always been stated as H 2557. I therefore acting in accordance with rule 13(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2005 read with rule 5 of the said Rules correct the accidental error in the Judgment, so as to give effect to the manifest intention of the Court. Therefore the title of the parcel at paragraph 18 (i) and (ii) of our Judgment dated 13thApril 2012 in the above titled case shall read as H 2557. Anthony F. T. Fernando Justice of Appeal Dated this 10th day of May 2012, Victoria, Seychelles 2

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Court of Appeal Rules 2005

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.