Hitie v Ah Weng (MA 102/2021 arising in (MC 114/2016)) [2022] SCSC 1074 (10 February 2022)

Hitie v Ah Weng (MA 102/2021 arising in (MC 114/2016)) [2022] SCSC 1074 (10 February 2022)

The applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable loss not compensable in damages, failed to show special circumstances, and raised no substantial question of law or prospect of success on appeal. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, who has invested in the property. The grounds of appeal are frivolous and vexatious.

Citation
[2022] SCSC 1074
Parties
Applicant: Cyril Hitie; Respondent: Maggie Ah Weng
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
10 February 2022
Case Number
MA 102/2021 arising in (MC 114/2016)
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Co Ownership, Subdivision of Land, Appeal Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Stay of Execution Co Ownership Subdivision of Land Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cyril Hitie

Applicant

Maggie Ah Weng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for grant of stay of execution pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable loss if stay is not granted
  3. 3 Whether there are special circumstances justifying stay of execution

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate that he would suffer irreparable loss not compensable in damages, failed to show special circumstances, and raised no substantial question of law or prospect of success on appeal. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, who has invested in the property. The grounds of appeal are frivolous and vexatious.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Costs awarded to the respondent