Seychelles Judgment

Supreme Court

Hunt v Hunt (CS 55 of 2024) [2024] SCSC 216 (9 October 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The plaintiff is entitled to judgment as prayed, including the sum owed and an order for the defendant to sign necessary bank documents, pursuant to Section 128 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure.

Court disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed

Orders

  • Defendant to sign necessary bank documents to allow transfer of SR109,115.27 to plaintiff
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff for SR109,115.27

02

Material facts

Parties

Anthony Hunt

Plaintiff Counsel: Mrs. Amesbury

Jane Hunt

Defendant Counsel: Mr. Wilby Lucas

Amounts and remedies

  • Sum Owed to Plaintiff: SCR 109,115.27

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil / Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment as prayed for the sum owed and for the defendant to sign bank documents

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiff seeks judgment for the sum of SR109,115.27 and an order compelling the defendant to sign necessary bank documents for transfer of funds.
Respondent
No argument from the defendant is recorded; judgment is entered as prayed by the plaintiff.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 128, Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure

    Judgment may be entered for the plaintiff as prayed where the application is granted under Section 128 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The plaintiff is entitled to judgment as prayed, including the sum owed and an order for the defendant to sign necessary bank documents, pursuant to Section 128 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure.

Court disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff as prayed

  • Defendant to sign necessary bank documents to allow transfer of SR109,115.27 to plaintiff
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff for SR109,115.27

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court

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

Supreme Court

Judgment

[2024] SCSC 216

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable CS55/2024

PLAINTIFF

DEFENDANT In the matter between

ANTHONY HUNT (rep. by Mrs. Amesbury) and

JANE HUNT (rep. by Mr. Wilby Lucas) Neutral Citation: A Hunt v J Hunt (eS 5512024 Before: Heard: Delivered: M Vidot 9 October 2024 9 October 2024

ORDER Vidot J The Court hereby makes the following order as follows;- [1] In terms with Section 128 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure the Court hereby grants the application by counsel for the Plaintiff that the Judgment be entered for the Plaintiff as prayed. [2] The prayer of the Plaint is to order the defendant to sign the necessary bank documents that will allow for the transfer of funds set out in paragraph 8 of the Plaint and paragraph 8 that the Plaintiffs avers that he is owed a total sum of SR109,115.27cts. So judgment is hereby entered accordingly. • Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 9 October 2024. ~'

JUDGE 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.

Section 128, Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure

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.