Simanovich & Ors v Mission Investment Ltd & Ors (CC 11/2015) [2018] SCSC 8211 (10 July 2018)

Simanovich & Ors v Mission Investment Ltd & Ors (CC 11/2015) [2018] SCSC 8211 (10 July 2018)

The court found that the document relied on by the plaintiffs (Minutes of the Meeting of Shareholders) did not comply with the formal requirements of Article 1325 of the Civil Code and was not valid as a bilateral contract. Even if considered as commencement of proof in writing, the companies against whom relief was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8211
Parties
Plaintiff: Vadim Simanovich; Plaintiff: Sergey Shkarin; Plaintiff: Konstantin Volkov; Plaintiff: ROVS Corporation; Defendant: Mission Investment Limited; Defendant: Victoria UN Limited; Defendant: Igor Likhachev
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
10 July 2018
Case Number
CC 11/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Close of Plaintiff's Case, Ruling on No Case to Answer
Outcome
Plaintiffs' case dismissed at no case to answer stage
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Validity of Agreements, Corporate Shares, Pleading Requirements
Source Language
english
Contract Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Validity of Agreements Corporate Shares Pleading Requirements

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vadim Simanovich

Plaintiff

Sergey Shkarin

Plaintiff

Konstantin Volkov

Plaintiff

ROVS Corporation

Plaintiff

Mission Investment Limited

Defendant

Victoria UN Limited

Defendant

Igor Likhachev

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Close of Plaintiff's Case, Ruling on No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement dated 11 January 2013 is valid and enforceable under Seychelles law
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance and allocation of shares in defendant companies
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to an account of expenses from defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the document relied on by the plaintiffs (Minutes of the Meeting of Shareholders) did not comply with the formal requirements of Article 1325 of the Civil Code and was not valid as a bilateral contract. Even if considered as commencement of proof in writing, the companies against whom relief was sought were not parties to the agreement. The pleadings were deficient and did not set out material facts entitling plaintiffs to the reliefs claimed. The plaintiffs' case had no real prospect of success and the submission of no case to answer succeeded.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' case dismissed at no case to answer stage

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' suit dismissed
  • No orders granted against defendants