Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Seychelles decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Luc v Knowles (CS 94/2019) [2021] SCSC 865 (26 March 2021)
The Supreme Court of Seychelles dismissed a claim over bank funds from a deceased estate, holding it was prescribed after five years and not interrupted.
Bibi & Ors v Stravens (CS 50/2019) [2020] SCSC 527 (26 June 2020)
The plaintiffs' claim is time-barred as the cause of action arose at the time of the accident in April 2013, and the purported admission by the defendant during the criminal trial does not constitute an acknowledgment sufficient to interrupt prescription under Article 2248 of the Civil Code. The interruption of prescription invoked by the plaintiffs is untenable.
Source excerpt
Chetty v The Estate of Regis Albert & Ors (CS 131/2018) [2020] SCSC 500 (7 May 2020)
The Defendants failed to prove unequivocal possession and animus required for acquisitive prescription, as their occupation was permissive and based on a mistaken belief of succession rights. The Plaintiff's suit is not prescribed as the prescriptive period began on 5 February 2009, and the suit was filed within the required period. The Defendants' counterclaim for acquisitive prescription is dismissed, and the Plaintiff's prayers are granted.
Source excerpt
Mathiot vs Mathiot, Executor of the Estate Jupiter and others (Civil Suit NO. 70 of 2012) [2013] SCSC 103 (20 September 2013)
The Supreme Court of Seychelles declared the plaintiff the natural son of the deceased after finding written acknowledgment of paternity and rejecting a time-bar objection.
Gomme v Padayachy (Civil Side No: 3(a) of 1999) [2011] SCSC 89 (13 November 2011)
The Supreme Court of Seychelles dismissed a land ownership claim, holding the defendant had acquired title by judicial sale in 1925 and the action was time-barred.
Petrousse nee Fernandez v Gregoretti (321 of 2001) [2007] SCSC 14 (27 October 2007)
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff’s land-ownership claim was prescribed under article 2262, because she sued nearly nine years after the 20-year period expired.
Public Utilities Corporation v Vista Domar Ltd (CS 294/1997) [1999] SCSC 5 (7 June 1999)
The Supreme Court held that Vista Do Mar Ltd was liable for unpaid hotel water and electricity bills, rejected objections on pleadings and prescription, and awarded PUC the claimed sum with costs.
Camille v Government of Seychelles (CS 8/1997) [1998] SCSC 21 (14 December 1998)
The action is prescribed under article 2271 of the Civil Code as the plaintiff and his wife knew the essential facts and failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the name of the assailant; there was no fraud or concealment by the Government, and thus no basis for equitable intervention to defeat prescription.
Source excerpt
Ag v Voysey (SCA 12 of 1995) [1996] SCCA 5 (5 July 1996)
The Court of Appeal held that the wrongful-death claim was time-barred because prescription ran from the helicopter crash and death, not from later reports.
Aguste v Marie-may (SCA 1 of 1995) [1996] SCCA 6 (1 March 1996)
SHDC is not a public officer within the meaning of the relevant statutes, and the limitation period under section 4(c) does not apply; the action was wrongly dismissed in limine and must be reheard on the merits.
Source excerpt
Explore more
