Monthy v Seychelles Licensing Authority (CS 24/2012) [2016] SCSC 957 (28 November 2016)

Monthy v Seychelles Licensing Authority (CS 24/2012) [2016] SCSC 957 (28 November 2016)

Both Defendants acted in good faith and followed established procedures; the Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that either Defendant committed a faute or caused her loss. The loss resulted from the fraudulent act of the Plaintiff's son, not from any fault or omission by the Defendants.

Citation
[2016] SCSC 957
Parties
Plaintiff: Sylvette Monthy; Defendant: Seychelles Licensing Authority
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Case Number
CS 24/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Faute, Delictual Liability, Vehicle Transfer, Forgery, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Delict Civil Procedure Faute Delictual Liability Vehicle Transfer Forgery Burden of Proof

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvette Monthy

Plaintiff

Seychelles Licensing Authority

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant's action in stamping and signing Exhibit P1 without witnessing the Plaintiff's signature constitutes a faute under Article 1382 of the Civil Code of Seychelles
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant's reliance on Exhibit P1 to effect the transfer constitutes a faute under Article 1382 of the Civil Code of Seychelles
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff suffered loss and damages as a result of the actions of the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Both Defendants acted in good faith and followed established procedures; the Plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that either Defendant committed a faute or caused her loss. The loss resulted from the fraudulent act of the Plaintiff's son, not from any fault or omission by the Defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed