Baccarie v Arnephy (8 of 2005) [2006] SCSC 71 (31 October 2006)

Baccarie v Arnephy (8 of 2005) [2006] SCSC 71 (31 October 2006)

The appellant failed to clearly set out his claim and did not provide documentary evidence or witnesses to support his allegations. The lower court was correct in finding that the appellant did not prove his case on a balance of probabilities.

Citation
[2006] SCSC 71
Parties
Appellant: Michel Baccarie; Respondent: Paul Arnephy
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
31 October 2006
Case Number
8 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Pleading Requirements, Appeals
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Burden of Proof Pleading Requirements Appeals

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

Parties

Michel Baccarie

Appellant

Paul Arnephy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant proved his claim for recovery of money allegedly owed by the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in its assessment of evidence and findings

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to clearly set out his claim and did not provide documentary evidence or witnesses to support his allegations. The lower court was correct in finding that the appellant did not prove his case on a balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed without costs