Marie-May Kolsch vs Chalets Enterprise (Pty) Ltd & Ors (MA207/2019) [2021] SCSC 1027 (22 October 2021)

Marie-May Kolsch vs Chalets Enterprise (Pty) Ltd & Ors (MA207/2019) [2021] SCSC 1027 (22 October 2021)

The Petitioner failed to establish factual grounds for the injunction, as there was no evidence of ongoing or imminent road construction. The balance of convenience favours the Respondents, who would suffer irreparable harm to their agricultural activities if restrained, while the Petitioner could be adequately compensated if successful in the main suit. The application for injunction is therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2021] SCSC 1027
Parties
Petitioner: Marie-May Kolsch; 1st Respondent: Chalets Enterprise (Pty) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Harald G. Kuehn
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
22 October 2021
Case Number
MA207/2019
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application (arising From Civil Suit) / Ruling on Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction
Outcome
Petition for injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Specific Performance, Promise of Sale, Encroachment, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Interim Injunctions Specific Performance Promise of Sale Encroachment Balance of Convenience

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie-May Kolsch

Petitioner

Chalets Enterprise (Pty) Ltd

1st Respondent

Harald G. Kuehn

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application (arising From Civil Suit) / Ruling on Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an ex-parte ad interim injunction should be granted restraining the Respondents from constructing a road or any construction on parcels T182 and T1370 pending the main suit
  2. 2 Whether the Petitioner has established a prima facie case for injunction
  3. 3 Whether damages would be an adequate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The Petitioner failed to establish factual grounds for the injunction, as there was no evidence of ongoing or imminent road construction. The balance of convenience favours the Respondents, who would suffer irreparable harm to their agricultural activities if restrained, while the Petitioner could be adequately compensated if successful in the main suit. The application for injunction is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Petition for injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Petition for injunction is dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents