Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Limited v Eastern European Engineering Limited (MA 310/2018) [2019] SCSC 1153 (10 February 2019)

Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Limited v Eastern European Engineering Limited (MA 310/2018) [2019] SCSC 1153 (10 February 2019)

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the judgment sum if the appeal succeeds, and the security offered was inadequate. The applicant did not demonstrate that refusal to grant a stay would render the appeal otiose or that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by granting a stay. The court, after balancing the competing interests, found no sufficient grounds to grant a stay of execution.

Citation
[2019] SCSC 1153
Parties
Applicant: Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Eastern European Engineering Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
10 February 2019
Case Number
MA 310/2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeals, Judgment Enforcement, Security for Judgment Debt
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Stay of Execution Appeals Judgment Enforcement Security for Judgment Debt

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Limited

Applicant

Eastern European Engineering Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for a stay of execution pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether failure to grant a stay would render the appeal otiose
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided adequate security for the judgment debt

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the respondent would be unable to refund the judgment sum if the appeal succeeds, and the security offered was inadequate. The applicant did not demonstrate that refusal to grant a stay would render the appeal otiose or that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by granting a stay. The court, after balancing the competing interests, found no sufficient grounds to grant a stay of execution.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution dismissed

Orders

  • The application for stay of execution is dismissed.