Mancienne & Anor v Ah-time & Anor (SCA 9 of 2010) [2013] SCCA 8 (3 May 2013)

Mancienne & Anor v Ah-time & Anor (SCA 9 of 2010) [2013] SCCA 8 (3 May 2013)

Demolition must be ordered for boundary encroachments unless the encroachment is negligible and demolition would cause grave injustice, which was not the case here. The appellants had no authority to build, and the encroachments were substantial. Damages are the appropriate remedy for breach of promise of sale, not specific performance, and moral damages are justified for the prejudice suffered.

Citation
[2013] SCCA 8
Parties
Appellant: Mancienne; Respondent: Ah-Time
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
3 May 2013
Case Number
SCA 9 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in main; cross-appeal partially allowed; judgment of Supreme Court largely confirmed with minor amendments.
Legal Topics
Boundary Encroachment, Demolition Orders, Promise of Sale, Damages, Specific Performance
Source Language
English
Property Law Contract Law Boundary Encroachment Demolition Orders Promise of Sale Damages Specific Performance

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mancienne

Appellant

Ah-Time

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether demolition should be ordered for boundary encroachments under art 545 of the Civil Code
  2. 2 Whether specific performance or damages is the appropriate remedy for breach of promise of sale
  3. 3 Whether moral damages are justified for encroachment

Ratio Decidendi

Demolition must be ordered for boundary encroachments unless the encroachment is negligible and demolition would cause grave injustice, which was not the case here. The appellants had no authority to build, and the encroachments were substantial. Damages are the appropriate remedy for breach of promise of sale, not specific performance, and moral damages are justified for the prejudice suffered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in main; cross-appeal partially allowed; judgment of Supreme Court largely confirmed with minor amendments.

Orders

  • Appellants to demolish and remove all encroaching structures within three months at their own expense.
  • Appellants to pay respondents R 150,000 as damages for prejudice suffered.