Seychelles Judgment

Supreme Court

Meme vs Meme (Civil Side No 204 of 2011) [2012] SCSC 8 (24 January 2012)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Respondent is incapable of managing her own affairs due to senile dementia, and the Applicant is willing and capable of acting as her guardian. The uncontroverted affidavit evidence supports granting the interdiction and appointing the Applicant as guardian.

Court disposition

Order of interdiction granted; Applicant appointed as guardian.

Orders

  • Order of interdiction in respect of Doris Meme granted
  • Melville Meme appointed as Guardian of Doris Meme

02

Material facts

Parties

Melville Meme

Applicant Counsel: Miss L. Pool

Doris Meme

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Petition for Interdiction / Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Respondent is suffering from senile dementia, her mental faculty is grossly impaired, and she is incapable of looking after her own affairs. She requires a person to act for her and look after her affairs.
Respondent
No objection was raised; the Office of the Attorney-General was served and did not object.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Articles 489 and 490 of the Civil Code of Seychelles

    A person suffering from mental incapacity may be interdicted and a guardian appointed to manage their affairs.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Respondent is incapable of managing her own affairs due to senile dementia, and the Applicant is willing and capable of acting as her guardian. The uncontroverted affidavit evidence supports granting the interdiction and appointing the Applicant as guardian.

Court disposition

Order of interdiction granted; Applicant appointed as guardian.

  • Order of interdiction in respect of Doris Meme granted
  • Melville Meme appointed as Guardian of Doris Meme

Source and reliance status

Supreme Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Supreme Court

Judgment

[2012] SCSC 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES

MELVILLE MEME

APPLICANT

VERSUS

DORIS MEME

RESPONDENT ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Miss L. Pool for the Applicant Civil Side No 204 of 2011 B. Renaud J

JUDGMENT This is an Application by Petition for Interdiction made in terms of Articles 489 and 490 of the Civil Code of Seychelles. The Applicant Melville Meme is the husband of the Respondent Doris Meme who is willing and capable of acting for her. They both lived at Anse a La Mouche. The Respondent is 78 years old and is suffering from senile dementia and her mental faculty is impaired grossly. She is incapable of looking after her own affairs. The Respondent is in the process of filing a case before the Supreme Court with regard to her inheritance. The Respondent requires a person to act for her and look after her affairs. The Office of the Attorney-General was duly served with this process as Ministere Publique and there is no objection. After considering the uncontroverted affidavit evidence adduced by the Applicant, this Court now gives its judgment and makes the following orders: (a) grants an order of interdiction in respect of the Respondent Mrs. Doris Meme; (b) appoints the Applicant Mr. Melville Meme to be the Guardian of the Respondent Mrs. Doris Meme. B. RENAUD

JUDGE Dated this 25th day of January, 2012

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Articles 489 and 490 of the Civil Code of Seychelles

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.