Pillay & Ors v Pillay (CS 87 of 2021) [2025] SCSC 128 (18 September 2025)

Pillay & Ors v Pillay (CS 87 of 2021) [2025] SCSC 128 (18 September 2025)

The defendant was personally obligated under the Mutual Partition Agreement to pay the plaintiffs SCR 9,500,000 upon their vacation of the Providence property. The obligation was not conditional or extinguished by continued occupation and rent payments, and the claim was not prescribed as the cause of action accrued upon vacation in November 2019. Interest is due at the legal rate of 4% per annum from 25 November 2019. Special damages were not proved and are denied. The counterclaim for set-off and accounting is dismissed as speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Citation
[2025] SCSC 128
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Paramesaram Pillay; 2nd Plaintiff: Rajgopol Pillay; 3rd Plaintiff: Senthilkumar Pillay; 4th Plaintiff: GS Pillay & Company Limited; Defendant: Jayachandran Pillay
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
18 September 2025
Case Number
CS 87 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil (breach of Contract) / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Partition of Family Assets, Prescription, Interest on Judgment Debts, Capacity to Sue, Counterclaim and Set Off
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Partition of Family Assets Prescription Interest on Judgment Debts Capacity to Sue Counterclaim and Set Off

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 7 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paramesaram Pillay

1st Plaintiff

Rajgopol Pillay

2nd Plaintiff

Senthilkumar Pillay

3rd Plaintiff

GS Pillay & Company Limited

4th Plaintiff

Jayachandran Pillay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (breach of Contract) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the Mutual Partition Agreement by failing to pay SCR 9,500,000 upon vacation of the Providence property
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs sued in the correct capacity
  3. 3 Whether the claim is prescribed (time-barred)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was personally obligated under the Mutual Partition Agreement to pay the plaintiffs SCR 9,500,000 upon their vacation of the Providence property. The obligation was not conditional or extinguished by continued occupation and rent payments, and the claim was not prescribed as the cause of action accrued upon vacation in November 2019. Interest is due at the legal rate of 4% per annum from 25 November 2019. Special damages were not proved and are denied. The counterclaim for set-off and accounting is dismissed as speculative and unsupported by evidence.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay SCR 9,500,000 to the plaintiffs with interest at the legal rate of 4% per annum from 25 November 2019.
  • Counterclaim dismissed.