Toussaint v Ah-tive (SCA 18 of 1995) [1996] SCCA 22 (30 October 1996)
The appellant failed to establish ownership of the boat as against the respondent; therefore, the plaint was dismissed and judgment entered for the respondent on the counter-claim.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] SCCA 22
- Parties
- Appellant: J. B. Toussaint; Respondent: John Ah-Tive
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- SCA 18 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; judgment for respondent on counter-claim.
- Legal Topics
- Ownership of Chattels, Recovery of Possession, Counter Claim
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
J. B. Toussaint
Appellant
John Ah-Tive
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant established ownership of the boat as against the respondent
- 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to succeed on his counter-claim
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to establish ownership of the boat as against the respondent; therefore, the plaint was dismissed and judgment entered for the respondent on the counter-claim.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; judgment for respondent on counter-claim.
Orders
- Plaint dismissed
- Judgment for respondent on counter-claim in the sum of R.2,000 with interest and costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL J. B. TOUSSAINT APPELLANT V/S (#) JOHN AH-TIVE RESPONDENT Civil Appeal No. 18 of 1995 Before Goburdhun, P., Silungwe and Venchard, JJA Mr. A. Juliette for the plaintiff Mr. B. Geoges for the defendant JUDGMENT The Appellant, the plaintiff in the Supreme Court obtained a judgment by consent from the Court regarding a boat. Subsequently the boat was retrieved at La Digue and brought to Mahe. The Respondent, who was not a party to the initial proceedings, took possession of the boat. As a result, the Appellant entered the present action to recover possession of the boat. The Respondent denied that the Appellant was the owner of the boat and lodged a counter-claim in the sum of R.24,500. The trial judge after a careful consideration of the evidence on record reached the conclusion that the Appellant had failed to establish as against the Respondent, that he was the owner of the boat. He dismissed the plaint and gave judgment in favour of the Respondent on the counter-claim in the sum of R.2,000/- together with interest and costs. The Appellant now appeals against this judgment on three grounds which are set out in the Memorandum of Appeal. Mr. Derjacques who appeared for him very fairly conceded in the course of his submission that the grounds