Leon Builders (Pty) Ltd & Anor v Mua (Seychelles) Insurance (CC 02/2017) [2018] SCSC 8059 (4 February 2018)

Leon Builders (Pty) Ltd & Anor v Mua (Seychelles) Insurance (CC 02/2017) [2018] SCSC 8059 (4 February 2018)

The defendant failed to plead and prove fraud or exaggeration with sufficient particularity or evidence. The plaintiffs proved their claims for stolen items on a balance of probabilities. The lack of receipts is not a contractual bar to recovery. The claim for loss of business was not substantiated by evidence and is disallowed.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8059
Parties
Plaintiff: Leon Builders (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: Antoine Leon; Defendant: MUA (Seychelles) Insurance
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
4 February 2018
Case Number
CC 02/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Insurance Claim / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiffs in part
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Fraud in Insurance Claims, Policy Interpretation, Damages for Loss, Procedural Law
Source Language
English
Insurance Law Contract Law Burden of Proof Fraud in Insurance Claims Policy Interpretation Damages for Loss Procedural Law

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leon Builders (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Antoine Leon

Plaintiff

MUA (Seychelles) Insurance

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Insurance Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment under the insurance policies for theft of property
  2. 2 Whether the defendant proved fraud or exaggeration sufficient to avoid liability under the policies
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to consequential damages for loss of business and enjoyment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to plead and prove fraud or exaggeration with sufficient particularity or evidence. The plaintiffs proved their claims for stolen items on a balance of probabilities. The lack of receipts is not a contractual bar to recovery. The claim for loss of business was not substantiated by evidence and is disallowed.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiffs in part

Orders

  • SR223,700 with interest at the commercial rate and costs to the First Plaintiff
  • SR18,420 with interest at the legal rate and costs to the Second Plaintiff