Marie v Laporte (227 of 2002) [2005] SCSC 41 (30 June 2005)

Marie v Laporte (227 of 2002) [2005] SCSC 41 (30 June 2005)

The plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and occupation of his property by the defendant after the court auction purchase, as the defendant ceased to be in good faith upon being notified of the sale and failed to vacate despite requests and an eviction order. The claim is not prescribed under Section 3 of the Evidence Act but falls under the five-year prescription of Article 2271 of the Civil Code. The quantum of indemnity at SR5,000.00 per month is fair and reasonable given the commercial use of the property.

Citation
[2005] SCSC 41
Parties
Plaintiff: Robin Marie; Defendant: Didier Laporte
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
30 June 2005
Case Number
227 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Damages for Use and Occupation, Prescription, Eviction, Indemnity
Source Language
English
Property Law Civil Procedure Damages for Use and Occupation Prescription Eviction Indemnity

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robin Marie

Plaintiff

Didier Laporte

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and occupation of property by the defendant after court auction purchase
  2. 2 Whether the claim is prescribed under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 74
  3. 3 Whether the defendant acted in bad faith by remaining on the property after being notified of the sale

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff is entitled to damages for use and occupation of his property by the defendant after the court auction purchase, as the defendant ceased to be in good faith upon being notified of the sale and failed to vacate despite requests and an eviction order. The claim is not prescribed under Section 3 of the Evidence Act but falls under the five-year prescription of Article 2271 of the Civil Code. The quantum of indemnity at SR5,000.00 per month is fair and reasonable given the commercial use of the property.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff SR128,710.00 as indemnity for use and occupation from 1st November 2000 to 23rd December 2002 at SR5,000.00 per month
  • Defendant to pay interest and costs