Gilbert and Others v Gilbert (246 of 2003) [2005] SCSC 53 (13 November 2005)

Gilbert and Others v Gilbert (246 of 2003) [2005] SCSC 53 (13 November 2005)

The Court found on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiffs contributed to the purchase of the property with the expectation of co-ownership, and that the defendant acted as their representative in acquiring the property. The Court rejected the defendant's and her mother's denial of contributions. The plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the property, and the defendant must transfer their respective shares after being reimbursed for subdivision costs.

Citation
[2005] SCSC 53
Parties
Plaintiff: Jean Claude Gilbert; Plaintiff: Louis Gilbert; Plaintiff: Ronald Gilbert; Plaintiff: Dilip Gilbert; Plaintiff: Paul Gilbert; Defendant: Fleurange Gilbert
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
13 November 2005
Case Number
246 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Co Ownership, Prescription, Fraud, Family Property, Land Transfer
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Co Ownership Prescription Fraud Family Property Land Transfer

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jean Claude Gilbert

Plaintiff

Louis Gilbert

Plaintiff

Ronald Gilbert

Plaintiff

Dilip Gilbert

Plaintiff

Paul Gilbert

Plaintiff

Fleurange Gilbert

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the property was purchased solely by the defendant or with contributions from the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to co-ownership of the property
  3. 3 Whether the claim is prescribed under the Civil Code

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiffs contributed to the purchase of the property with the expectation of co-ownership, and that the defendant acted as their representative in acquiring the property. The Court rejected the defendant's and her mother's denial of contributions. The plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the property, and the defendant must transfer their respective shares after being reimbursed for subdivision costs.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiffs

Orders

  • Defendant to transfer respective shares to plaintiffs within two months after reimbursement of subdivision costs.
  • Failing compliance, Registrar of Lands to register the five plaintiffs as co-owners with the defendant based on the judgment.