Lucas vs Zena Entertainment (Pty) Ltd and others (Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2013) [2013] SCSC 56 (8 July 2013)

Lucas vs Zena Entertainment (Pty) Ltd and others (Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2013) [2013] SCSC 56 (8 July 2013)

The application for writ and the application for stay are both dismissed because the principal issues are settled by the outcome of the main case (CS 370/2005), and the existence of a prior judgment in favour of the company constitutes an arguable defence, making the writ procedure inappropriate. Non-disclosure of the 1995 judgment by the plaintiff further justifies refusal of costs.

Citation
[2013] SCSC 56
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent: Charles Lucas; First Defendant / Petitioner: Zena Entertainments (Pty) Ltd; Second Defendant: Zena Dudley
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
8 July 2013
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Writ Habere Facias Possessionem
Outcome
Application for writ and application for stay both dismissed. No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Writ of Habere Facias Possessionem, Res Judicata, Specific Performance, Company Strike Off, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Property Law Writ of Habere Facias Possessionem Res Judicata Specific Performance Company Strike Off Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Lucas

Plaintiff / Respondent

Zena Entertainments (Pty) Ltd

First Defendant / Petitioner

Zena Dudley

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Stay and Writ Habere Facias Possessionem

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a writ habere facias possessionem should be granted
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending appeal in related case
  3. 3 Effect of prior judgments and res judicata on current proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application for writ and the application for stay are both dismissed because the principal issues are settled by the outcome of the main case (CS 370/2005), and the existence of a prior judgment in favour of the company constitutes an arguable defence, making the writ procedure inappropriate. Non-disclosure of the 1995 judgment by the plaintiff further justifies refusal of costs.

Court Disposition

Application for writ and application for stay both dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The underlying application for a writ (CS 251/2005) is dismissed.
  • The application for stay (MA 54/2013) is dismissed.