Luc v Knowles (CS 94/2019) [2021] SCSC 865 (26 March 2021)

Luc v Knowles (CS 94/2019) [2021] SCSC 865 (26 March 2021)

The plaintiff's claim was filed more than five years after the alleged wrongful act and was therefore prescribed under Article 2271 of the Civil Code. Prior proceedings before the Magistrates Court, dismissed for want of jurisdiction, did not interrupt prescription under Article 2247. Letters of demand also did not interrupt prescription. The plea in limine litis was upheld and the plaint dismissed as time-barred.

Citation
[2021] SCSC 865
Parties
Plaintiff: Danielle Luc; Defendant: Fulgencia Knowles
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
26 March 2021
Case Number
CS 94/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Plea in Limine Litis (preliminary Objection)
Outcome
Plaint dismissed on ground of prescription; each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Prescription, Limitation of Actions, Disposition by Will, Intestacy, Plea in Limine Litis
Source Language
English
Succession Law Civil Procedure Prescription Limitation of Actions Disposition by Will Intestacy Plea in Limine Litis

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danielle Luc

Plaintiff

Fulgencia Knowles

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Plea in Limine Litis (preliminary Objection)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is time-barred by prescription under Article 2271 of the Civil Code of Seychelles
  2. 2 Whether prior proceedings interrupted prescription
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was entitled to the funds as spouse or the plaintiff as legatee

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim was filed more than five years after the alleged wrongful act and was therefore prescribed under Article 2271 of the Civil Code. Prior proceedings before the Magistrates Court, dismissed for want of jurisdiction, did not interrupt prescription under Article 2247. Letters of demand also did not interrupt prescription. The plea in limine litis was upheld and the plaint dismissed as time-barred.

Court Disposition

Plaint dismissed on ground of prescription; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • The plaint is dismissed on the plea in limine litis on the ground of prescription of five years.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.