Essack v Auto Clinic (Prop) Ltd (CS 331/1999) [2000] SCSC 2 (17 January 2000)

Essack v Auto Clinic (Prop) Ltd (CS 331/1999) [2000] SCSC 2 (17 January 2000)

The proceedings for sale by licitation of the leasehold interest were fundamentally flawed as the proper procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure was not followed, and the use of the Immovable Property (Judicial Sales) Act was misconceived for execution of a money judgment. The intervenor, as a director, had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] SCSC 2
Parties
Petitioner: David Essack; Respondent: Auto Clinic (Pty) Ltd; Intervenor Defendant: Alan Horner
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
17 January 2000
Case Number
CS 331/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Motion to Intervene and Quash Proceedings
Outcome
proceedings quashed
Legal Topics
Judicial Sale, Execution of Judgment, Intervention, Leasehold Interests
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Property Law Company Law Judicial Sale Execution of Judgment Intervention Leasehold Interests

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Essack

Petitioner

Auto Clinic (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Alan Horner

Intervenor Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Motion to Intervene and Quash Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intervenor is entitled to intervene in the proceedings for judicial sale
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted for execution of judgment was proper under the applicable law
  3. 3 Whether the sale by licitation of leasehold interest was valid

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings for sale by licitation of the leasehold interest were fundamentally flawed as the proper procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure was not followed, and the use of the Immovable Property (Judicial Sales) Act was misconceived for execution of a money judgment. The intervenor, as a director, had sufficient interest to be joined. The entire proceedings were quashed.

Court Disposition

proceedings quashed

Orders

  • The whole proceedings are quashed.
  • The petitioner is at liberty to execute the judgment in case no. 186/98 according to law.