Wong-MacFarlane v Bistoquet (CS 24 of 2022) [2021] SCSC 901 (19 October 2021)

Wong-MacFarlane v Bistoquet (CS 24 of 2022) [2021] SCSC 901 (19 October 2021)

The court cannot determine when prescription started to run without hearing evidence on when the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant's alleged transgressions. The plea in limine litis is not dismissed but placed in abeyance pending evidence.

Citation
[2021] SCSC 901
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
19 October 2021 19 October 2021 28 May 2021
Case Number
CS 24 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine Litis
Outcome
plea in limine litis placed in abeyance
Legal Topics
Prescription, Limitation Period, Interruption of Prescription
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Prescription Limitation Period Interruption of Prescription

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

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine Litis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim is prescribed under article 2271(1) of the Civil Code of Seychelles
  2. 2 Whether the prescription period was interrupted by prior proceedings or concealment of facts

Ratio Decidendi

The court cannot determine when prescription started to run without hearing evidence on when the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant's alleged transgressions. The plea in limine litis is not dismissed but placed in abeyance pending evidence.

Court Disposition

plea in limine litis placed in abeyance

Orders

  • The plea in limine litis is not dismissed but will be determined after hearing all relevant evidence.
  • Costs shall follow the event.