Hunt v Hunt ((Civil Appeal SCA 20/2024) [2025] (22 April 2025) (Arising in CS 55 of 2024)) [2025] SCCA 9 (22 April 2025)

Hunt v Hunt ((Civil Appeal SCA 20/2024) [2025] (22 April 2025) (Arising in CS 55 of 2024)) [2025] SCCA 9 (22 April 2025)

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to file her defence within the prescribed time, placing her in default and entitling the trial judge to enter judgment under Section 128 SCCP. The late filing of the defence did not obligate the court to consider it, and the Appellant’s presence was ensured through counsel. The trial judge exercised discretion properly and in accordance with law. Grounds relating to evidential burden and affidavit defects were either without merit or not properly pleaded in the Notice of Appeal.

Citation
[2025] SCCA 9
Parties
Appellant: Jane Hunt; Respondent: Anthony Hunt
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
22 April 2025
Case Number
(Civil Appeal SCA 20/2024) [2025] (22 April 2025) (Arising in CS 55 of 2024)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Statement of Defence, Procedural Fairness, Affidavit Defects, Appeal Grounds
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Statement of Defence Procedural Fairness Affidavit Defects Appeal Grounds

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Hunt

Appellant

Anthony Hunt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in entering judgment under Section 128 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure in the absence of the Appellant
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred by ignoring the fact that the Appellant had filed a Statement of Defence on 9th October, 2024
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred by failing to ensure the Respondent discharged the evidential burden of proof

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to file her defence within the prescribed time, placing her in default and entitling the trial judge to enter judgment under Section 128 SCCP. The late filing of the defence did not obligate the court to consider it, and the Appellant’s presence was ensured through counsel. The trial judge exercised discretion properly and in accordance with law. Grounds relating to evidential burden and affidavit defects were either without merit or not properly pleaded in the Notice of Appeal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety and the Judgment of the Supreme Court is upheld.
  • Costs are awarded for the Respondent as prayed.