Hossen v Choppy (MA 188 of 2019) [2022] SCSC 690 (30 June 2022)

Hossen v Choppy (MA 188 of 2019) [2022] SCSC 690 (30 June 2022)

The petition was dismissed as fatally defective for being filed out of time without leave of the court, as required by Rule 34(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules. On the merits, the petitioner would have been entitled to a share in the proceeds of H1829 based on her monetary and non-monetary contributions, but not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] SCSC 690
Parties
Petitioner: Marie Therese Hossen; Respondent: Benjamin Finlay Choppy
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
30 June 2022
Case Number
MA 188 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Property Settlement / Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Matrimonial Property, Ancillary Relief, Limitation Periods, Non Monetary Contributions, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
english
Family Law Matrimonial Property Ancillary Relief Limitation Periods Non Monetary Contributions Procedural Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie Therese Hossen

Petitioner

Benjamin Finlay Choppy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Property Settlement / Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition for a share in matrimonial property was filed within the statutory time limit under the Matrimonial Causes Rules
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to a share of the proceeds of sale of properties H1829 and H5013 based on monetary and non-monetary contributions
  3. 3 Whether the petitioner contributed to the acquisition, maintenance, or improvement of the properties in question

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was dismissed as fatally defective for being filed out of time without leave of the court, as required by Rule 34(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules. On the merits, the petitioner would have been entitled to a share in the proceeds of H1829 based on her monetary and non-monetary contributions, but not in H5013, which was acquired after separation. However, the absence of a timely application and lack of necessary valuations precluded any award.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The petition is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.