Bason v Bason & Ors (CS 17/1992) [2005] SCSC 3 (27 May 2005)

Bason v Bason & Ors (CS 17/1992) [2005] SCSC 3 (27 May 2005)

The Plaintiff had proprietary interest in the suit-property, having paid the purchase price. The First Defendant transferred the property to the Second and Third Defendants with fraudulent intent to deprive the Plaintiff of his ownership, without his knowledge and during the subsistence of the marriage. The transfer was therefore null and void for fraud, and the Plaintiff is entitled to be registered as owner.

Citation
[2005] SCSC 3
Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Bason; First Defendant: Rose Labonte (Bason); Second Defendant: Jacqueline Agnes Labonte nee Derjacques; Third Defendant: Jean-Baptiste James Labonte
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Case Number
CS 17/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Retrial Following Appellate Remand
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff; transfer set aside as fraudulent; Plaintiff declared lawful owner; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Transfer, Matrimonial Property, Nullity of Contract, Proprietary Interest, Privity of Contract
Source Language
English
Property Law Family Law Contract Law Fraudulent Transfer Matrimonial Property Nullity of Contract Proprietary Interest Privity of Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Bason

Plaintiff

Rose Labonte (Bason)

First Defendant

Jacqueline Agnes Labonte nee Derjacques

Second Defendant

Jean-Baptiste James Labonte

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Retrial Following Appellate Remand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Plaintiff have proprietary interest in the suit-property title S1640?
  2. 2 Did the First Defendant transfer the suit-property to the Second and Third Defendants with the intention of defrauding the Plaintiff?
  3. 3 Is the Plaintiff entitled to be registered as the owner of the suit-property?

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff had proprietary interest in the suit-property, having paid the purchase price. The First Defendant transferred the property to the Second and Third Defendants with fraudulent intent to deprive the Plaintiff of his ownership, without his knowledge and during the subsistence of the marriage. The transfer was therefore null and void for fraud, and the Plaintiff is entitled to be registered as owner.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff; transfer set aside as fraudulent; Plaintiff declared lawful owner; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Transfer of land Title No. S1640 made by the First Defendant on 29 January 1990 to the Second and Third Defendants set aside as fraudulent.
  • Plaintiff declared lawful owner of Title No. S1640 and entitled to be registered as such.