Monnaie vs Housing Finance Company (Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2012) [2013] SCSC 35 (2 April 2013)
The Magistrate erred in law by applying the criminal standard of proof to a civil case, which is a fatal misdirection warranting the appeal to be upheld and the matter remitted for rehearing.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] SCSC 35
- Parties
- Appellant: Joseph Monnaie; Respondent: Housing Finance Company
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Standard of Proof, Application of Civil Code, Remittal to Lower Court
- 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
Joseph Monnaie
Appellant
Housing Finance Company
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrate applied the correct standard of proof in a civil case
- 2 Whether Articles 1582 and 1583 of the Civil Code were correctly applied
Ratio Decidendi
The Magistrate erred in law by applying the criminal standard of proof to a civil case, which is a fatal misdirection warranting the appeal to be upheld and the matter remitted for rehearing.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Appeal upheld with costs
- Matter remitted to Magistrate Court for rehearing before a different Magistrate
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES JOSEPH MONNAIE Vs HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY Civil Appeal No: 11 of 2012 =========================================================== Mr. Elizabeth for the Appellant Mr. Robert for the Respondent Renaud, J. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the decision of Learned Magistrate Ng’hwani given on 14th October, 2011 in case CS 01/11. The two grounds of appeal are: 1. The Learned Magistrate erred in law when she concluded that “the Court finds that the Plaintiff failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt…” 2. The Learned Magistrate erred in law when she applied the provision of Article 1582 and 1583 of the Civil Code in this case. The original suit CS 01/11was a civil matter where the Plaintiff then (the Appellant now) was claiming moral damage in the sum SR110,000.00 with interests and costs against the then Defendants (now Respondents). At the original hearing Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff withdrew the case against the 2nd Defendant and proceeded against the 1st Defendant only. The matter was heard ex-parte as the Defendant failed to put up appearance. Hence, there was before the Court only the evidence of the Plaintiff. The Learned Magistrate considered the evidence of the Plaintiff and in her judgment made reference to Article 1582 and 1583 of the Civil Code of Seychelles and ostensibly applied its provisions when determining the case. In her final analysis the Learned Magistrate based herself on the premise that the required standard of proof in such case was that of “beyond reasonable doubt” as is applicable in a criminal case instead of that of “balance of probabilities”. The end result was that she found that the Plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence on that standard of proof to prove his case which she accordingly dismissed. I find that the Learned Magistrate misdirected herself in law and applied the incorrect standard of proof and this is fatal to the case. I accordingly uphold the appeal of the Appellant with cost. In the interest of justice I remit this matter to the Magistrate Court for the original matter to be heard by a different Magistrate. ............................ B. RENAUD JUDGE Dated this 2 April, 2013