Amelie v Margueritte (CA 19/2016) [2017] SCSC 943 (23 October 2017)
The Appellant failed to prove the value of the work completed and the amount paid, and did not produce documentary evidence or witnesses to corroborate his testimony. However, the Respondent failed to prove payment of the alleged SR8,000 advance, and since the Appellant commenced work, he is entitled to that sum.
- Citation
- [2017] SCSC 943
- Parties
- Appellant: Felix Amelie; Respondent: Marc Margueritte
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Judgment Date
- 23 October 2017
- Case Number
- CA 19/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- partially allowed
- Legal Topics
- Oral Contracts, Burden of Proof, Evidence Admissibility, Building Agreements, Appeal Grounds
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Felix Amelie
Appellant
Marc Margueritte
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in failing to consider all the evidence
- 2 Whether the Magistrate erred in law and on the evidence in holding that the Respondent proved his case
- 3 Whether the Appellant was entitled to the claimed outstanding balance for works performed
Ratio Decidendi
The Appellant failed to prove the value of the work completed and the amount paid, and did not produce documentary evidence or witnesses to corroborate his testimony. However, the Respondent failed to prove payment of the alleged SR8,000 advance, and since the Appellant commenced work, he is entitled to that sum.
Court Disposition
partially allowed
Orders
- Respondent to pay Appellant SR8,000
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment