D'Arc Jupiter v Fostel & Bonte (CS 47/2017) [2019] SCSC 1141 (29 January 2019)

D'Arc Jupiter v Fostel & Bonte (CS 47/2017) [2019] SCSC 1141 (29 January 2019)

The promise of sale was invalid as the property was co-owned at the time and the first defendant was not acting as fiduciary; only the fiduciary could effect such a transfer.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] SCSC 1141
Parties
Plaintiff: Jeanne D’Arc Jupiter; 1st Defendant: Will Fostel; 2nd Defendant: Magda Dugasse
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
29 January 2019
Case Number
CS 47/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Case dismissed
Legal Topics
Promise of Sale, Co Ownership, Enforcement of Contract
Source Language
english
Property Law Promise of Sale Co Ownership Enforcement of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanne D’Arc Jupiter

Plaintiff

Will Fostel

1st Defendant

Magda Dugasse

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the promise of sale was valid given co-ownership of the property
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had a cause of action against the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the action was time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The promise of sale was invalid as the property was co-owned at the time and the first defendant was not acting as fiduciary; only the fiduciary could effect such a transfer.

Court Disposition

Case dismissed

Orders

  • Plea in limine allowed
  • Each side to bear their own costs