Muller v Benoiton Construction (MA 59/2020 (arising in CC 04/2017)) [2020] SCSC 601 (10 September 2020)

Muller v Benoiton Construction (MA 59/2020 (arising in CC 04/2017)) [2020] SCSC 601 (10 September 2020)

Section 69 SCCP does not apply as the applicant appeared on the date fixed in the summons but failed to appear at subsequent hearings. No sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance, and the affidavit in support was defective. The application was an abuse of process and is refused.

Citation
[2020] SCSC 601
Parties
Applicant: Arnoud Muller; Respondent: Benoiton Construction
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Case Number
MA 59/2020 (arising in CC 04/2017)
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; ex-parte judgment maintained.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Abuse of Process, Adjournment, Affidavit Validity
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Abuse of Process Adjournment Affidavit Validity

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arnoud Muller

Applicant

Benoiton Construction

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex-parte judgment should be set aside under section 69 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the affidavit in support of the application was defective

Ratio Decidendi

Section 69 SCCP does not apply as the applicant appeared on the date fixed in the summons but failed to appear at subsequent hearings. No sufficient cause was shown for non-appearance, and the affidavit in support was defective. The application was an abuse of process and is refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused; ex-parte judgment maintained.