Joseph v Joseph and Another (302 of 2007) [2009] SCSC 29 (24 May 2009)

Joseph v Joseph and Another (302 of 2007) [2009] SCSC 29 (24 May 2009)

The respondent is a licensee whose license to occupy the property has been revoked by the lawful owners; he has no legal or equitable right to remain, has failed to show any bona fide defence, and is therefore liable to be evicted by writ of Habere Facias Possessionem.

Citation
[2009] SCSC 29
Parties
Applicant: Joachim Joseph; Applicant: Philomena Joseph; Respondent: Barry Joseph
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
24 May 2009
Case Number
302 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application for Writ of Habere Facias Possessionem
Outcome
Application allowed; writ granted.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Possession, Licensee and Licensor, Family Property Disputes
Source Language
English

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joachim Joseph

Applicant

Philomena Joseph

Applicant

Barry Joseph

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application for Writ of Habere Facias Possessionem

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in illegal occupation of the property after revocation of license
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has any bona fide right or defence to remain in the property
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a writ of Habere Facias Possessionem

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is a licensee whose license to occupy the property has been revoked by the lawful owners; he has no legal or equitable right to remain, has failed to show any bona fide defence, and is therefore liable to be evicted by writ of Habere Facias Possessionem.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; writ granted.

Orders

  • Respondent to leave, quit and vacate the house situated on Title T819, Takamaka, Mahé on or before 30th June 2009 and deliver vacant possession to the applicants.
  • No order as to costs.