Albert v Pillay & Ors (CS 61/2016) [2018] SCSC 8184 (31 May 2018)

Albert v Pillay & Ors (CS 61/2016) [2018] SCSC 8184 (31 May 2018)

Parcel C505 is not enclaved as it is accessible via a road reserve on Parcel C504, and there is no document of title creating a right of way over Parcel C3550. The use by the defendants does not create a legal right of way, and the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive enjoyment of her property. The government is constructing an alternative access road, making the defendants' continued use of the plaintiff's land unnecessary and unjustified.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8184
Parties
Plaintiff: Ruth Lyra Albert; First Defendant: Anabelle Pillay; Second Defendant: Remond Pillay; Third Defendant: Audrey Pillay; Fourth Defendant: Randolph Pillay
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Case Number
CS 61/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed; defendants restrained from using plaintiff's land as access or parking, with delayed enforcement.
Legal Topics
Right of Way, Easements, Land Subdivision, Access to Land
Source Language
English
Property Law Right of Way Easements Land Subdivision Access to Land

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Lyra Albert

Plaintiff

Anabelle Pillay

First Defendant

Remond Pillay

Second Defendant

Audrey Pillay

Third Defendant

Randolph Pillay

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have a legal right of way over the plaintiff's land (Parcel C3550)
  2. 2 Whether Parcel C505 is enclaved and entitled to a right of way
  3. 3 Whether long use or prescription creates a right of way in this context

Ratio Decidendi

Parcel C505 is not enclaved as it is accessible via a road reserve on Parcel C504, and there is no document of title creating a right of way over Parcel C3550. The use by the defendants does not create a legal right of way, and the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive enjoyment of her property. The government is constructing an alternative access road, making the defendants' continued use of the plaintiff's land unnecessary and unjustified.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed; defendants restrained from using plaintiff's land as access or parking, with delayed enforcement.

Orders

  • Defendants are ordered not to use Parcel C3550 as an access road or for parking.
  • Order to come into force on 1 December 2018 or upon completion of the new access road, whichever is sooner.