Burka v Ventigadoo (08 of 2009) [2009] SCSC 5 (15 November 2009)

Burka v Ventigadoo (08 of 2009) [2009] SCSC 5 (15 November 2009)

The defendant failed to file a defence despite repeated opportunities. Under Section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in default for the sum claimed, with interest and costs.

Citation
[2009] SCSC 5
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Joseph Burka; Defendant: Rolex Ventigadoo
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
15 November 2009
Case Number
08 of 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing Due to Defendant's Failure to File Defence
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Default Judgment
Source Language
English
Tort Civil Procedure Negligence Motor Vehicle Accident Default Judgment

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

Parties

Daniel Joseph Burka

Plaintiff

Rolex Ventigadoo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Ex Parte Hearing Due to Defendant's Failure to File Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident due to negligence and driving under the influence
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in default under Section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to file a defence despite repeated opportunities. Under Section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment in default for the sum claimed, with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Plaintiff awarded SR 100,000.00 with interest from date of judgment until payment in full
  • Defendant to pay costs of the proceedings