Maurel v Maurel (SCA 1 of 1997) [1997] SCCA 4 (28 November 1997)
The appellate court found the lower court's award of a lump sum and transfer of certain properties to the respondent improper and set them aside, ordering instead the transfer of other property and payment of a specified sum to the appellant.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1997] SCCA 4
- Parties
- Appellant: Angelika Ursula Maurel (Nee Mulhein); Respondent: Marie Joseph Max Maurel
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- SCA 1 of 1997
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Division of Matrimonial Property, Appeal, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Angelika Ursula Maurel (Nee Mulhein)
Appellant
Marie Joseph Max Maurel
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the award of lump sum to the respondent was proper
- 2 Whether the transfer of property and shares was justified
Ratio Decidendi
The appellate court found the lower court's award of a lump sum and transfer of certain properties to the respondent improper and set them aside, ordering instead the transfer of other property and payment of a specified sum to the appellant.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal dismissed
Orders
- The award of a lump sum of SR360,000 to the respondent is set aside
- Ownership of parcel J351 and house at Port Glaud given to the respondent is set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL ANGELIKA. URSULA MAUREL (Nee Mulhein) APPELLANT VERSUS MARIE JOSEPH MAX MAUREL RESPONDENT (130 re: Goburdhol, P, Venchard & Adam UA) RA. RV Civil Appeal No. 1 of 1997 Mr. P. Pardiwalla for the Appellant Mr. A. Derjacques for the Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT o f t,1 • , Appeal is allowed with costs to the extent that (1) the award made of a lump sum of SR360,000 to the Respondent is set aside; (2) the ownership to parcelj351 and house at Port Glaud given to the Respondent is set aside; (3) the Respondent transfer parcelf1746 at La Retrait to the Appellant; (4) the Respondent pa y the sum of SR2,250,000 to the Appellant b y no later than 27th February 1998 and (5) the Respondent transfer shares held b y him in GTM Holdings (Pty) Ltd to the Appellant. Cross-Appeal is dismissed with costs. Reasons to follow. Dated at Victoria thisSX -- da y of 'A" 1997. ( GOBURDI IUN PRESIDENT M. A. ADAM JUSTICE OF APPEAL 1_. VENCHARD JUSTICE OF APPEAL