O'Nivo Construction (Pty) Ltd and Anor V Bijoux and Anor (SCA 8 of 2019) [2021] SCCA 35 (13 August 2021)

O'Nivo Construction (Pty) Ltd and Anor V Bijoux and Anor (SCA 8 of 2019) [2021] SCCA 35 (13 August 2021)

The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellants' actions constituted nuisance causing loss, pain, and suffering to the respondents. The appellants' lack of awareness of the damage is not a defence. The appeal was limited to liability, and the court could not entertain arguments on quantum of damages as they were not pleaded. The appeal was dismissed and the Supreme Court's judgment and orders upheld.

Citation
[2021] SCCA 35
Parties
1st Appellant: O’Nivo Construction (Pty) Limited; 2nd Appellant: Jin Hua Zhou; 1st Respondent: Jacqueline Bijoux; 2nd Respondent: Robert Cicobo
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
13 August 2021
Case Number
SCA 8 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Nuisance, Liability for Nuisance, Damages, Civil Procedure, Pleadings
Source Language
English

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O’Nivo Construction (Pty) Limited

1st Appellant

Jin Hua Zhou

2nd Appellant

Jacqueline Bijoux

1st Respondent

Robert Cicobo

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the appellants caused actionable nuisance by noise, dust, water, and smell to the respondents' property
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in finding nuisance proved on a balance of probabilities
  3. 3 Whether damages awarded were excessive and should be reduced

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellants' actions constituted nuisance causing loss, pain, and suffering to the respondents. The appellants' lack of awareness of the damage is not a defence. The appeal was limited to liability, and the court could not entertain arguments on quantum of damages as they were not pleaded. The appeal was dismissed and the Supreme Court's judgment and orders upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment and orders of the Supreme Court upheld
  • Appellants to pay respondents moral damages of SR 200,000 jointly and severally