Nilsen and Another v Confait and Another (106 of 2001) [2009] SCSC 25 (6 May 2009)

Nilsen and Another v Confait and Another (106 of 2001) [2009] SCSC 25 (6 May 2009)

The defendants unlawfully encroached on the plaintiffs’ property by constructing part of their building, including a roof, across the boundary and onto PR10 without consent, destroying a boundary beacon in the process. The wall in question was not a party-wall but was built entirely on the plaintiffs’ land. The defendants failed to prove their counterclaim of encroachment by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to demolition of the encroaching structures, cessation of trespass, and damages as claimed.

Citation
[2009] SCSC 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Mr. Roald Nilsen; Plaintiff: Mrs. Kari Nilsen; Defendant: Mr. August Confait; Defendant: Mrs. Flavie Confait
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
6 May 2009
Case Number
106 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiffs; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Encroachment, Boundary Disputes, Damages, Trespass
Source Language
English
Property Law Tort Law Land Encroachment Boundary Disputes Damages Trespass

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

Parties

Mr. Roald Nilsen

Plaintiff

Mrs. Kari Nilsen

Plaintiff

Mr. August Confait

Defendant

Mrs. Flavie Confait

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants encroached on the plaintiffs’ land parcel PR10 by constructing part of their building across the boundary line.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs consented or acquiesced to such encroachment by the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs suffered damage as a result of the encroachment and the quantum of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants unlawfully encroached on the plaintiffs’ property by constructing part of their building, including a roof, across the boundary and onto PR10 without consent, destroying a boundary beacon in the process. The wall in question was not a party-wall but was built entirely on the plaintiffs’ land. The defendants failed to prove their counterclaim of encroachment by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to demolition of the encroaching structures, cessation of trespass, and damages as claimed.

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiffs; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to demolish all construction on plaintiffs’ land parcel PR10.
  • If defendants fail to demolish within 30 days, plaintiffs authorized to effect demolition with assistance of process server or police if requested.