Berta (Proprietary) Ltd v Panagary (CS 111/2014) [2017] SCSC 951 (2 November 2017)

Berta (Proprietary) Ltd v Panagary (CS 111/2014) [2017] SCSC 951 (2 November 2017)

The Defendants breached the lease agreement by failing to obtain the required Certificate of Occupancy, acted in bad faith by concealing this fact and unilaterally revoking the lease, causing the Plaintiff loss and hardship. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages and moral damages, while the Defendants' counterclaim...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] SCSC 951
Parties
Plaintiff: Berta (Proprietary) Limited; 1st Defendant: Frank Panagary; 2nd Defendant: Winnie Panagary
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
2 November 2017
Case Number
CS 111/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Lease Agreement, Damages, Moral Damages, Planning Authority Approval, Certificate of Occupancy
Source Language
english
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Law Breach of Lease Agreement Damages Moral Damages Planning Authority Approval Certificate of Occupancy

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Berta (Proprietary) Limited

Plaintiff

Frank Panagary

1st Defendant

Winnie Panagary

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants breached the lease agreement by failing to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Planning Authority
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff made improvements to the leased premises at its own cost
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff was ready to commence business at the signing of the lease agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants breached the lease agreement by failing to obtain the required Certificate of Occupancy, acted in bad faith by concealing this fact and unilaterally revoking the lease, causing the Plaintiff loss and hardship. The Plaintiff is entitled to damages and moral damages, while the Defendants' counterclaim fails as the lease was illegal for lack of occupancy certificate and the Defendants' losses were self-inflicted.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff awarded SR 526,884.31 for loss and damages
  • Plaintiff awarded SR 75,000 for moral damages