Pillay & Ors v Pillay (CS 87 of 2021) [2023] SCSC 728 (20 September 2023)

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court determined whether the plaintiffs' cause of action for recovering SR 9,500,000, based on a 2012 agreement, was prescribed by law. Key considerations included interpreting conflicting contract clauses (7.a, 7.b, 7.c) regarding payment timing, the parties' conduct (e.g., continued rent payments until 2019), and when the cause of action arose. The court found the cause of action arose on 25 November 2019 (vacation date), making the 2021 claim within the 5-year prescription period.
• The court assessed whether the plaintiffs' plea that the counter-claim was prescribed and bad in law was properly raised. It ruled the plaintiffs waived this objection by failing to address it before closing their case, citing case law (Vel V/S Knowles, James Lesperance case) that such late pleas are irregular and constitute abandonment. The court also found the counter-claim not vague for lacking sufficient legal detail.

Holdings

• The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' plea in limine litis that the Counter-claim was prescribed and bad in law. The Plaintiffs failed to address the prescription issue in their submissions, and the Counter-claim was not found to be vague or lacking material facts. The plea was deemed waived for being raised at a late stage without prior notice to the Defendant.
• The Court dismissed the Defendant's plea in limine litis regarding prescription, finding that the 5-year prescriptive period for actions to recover property value (droit personnel) applied. The cause of action arose on 25th November 2019 when the Plaintiffs vacated the premises, and the plaint was filed on 4th October 2021, within the 5-year period. The plea was also deemed waived as it was raised too late during proceedings.

Remedies

Contract Value

Legal Principles

• The court dismissed the Defendant's plea in limine litis on prescription as it was raised too late in the proceedings, after the Plaintiffs had closed their case. This aligns with the principle from Public Utilities Corporation V/S Eliza that objections based on limitation periods are waived if raised too late in the process.
• The court applied the purposive approach to contract interpretation, prioritizing the common intention of the parties over the literal meaning of the contract clauses. This principle is grounded in Article 1156 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, which mandates that courts seek the parties' shared intent when interpreting contracts.
• The court ruled that a 5-year prescription period applies to actions seeking to recover the value of property (droit personnel/droit de créance) under Article 2271 of the Civil Code. This period began from the date the Plaintiffs vacated the premises, not the original contractual due date, due to the parties' conduct extending the agreement.
• The court held that parties cannot raise a plea in limine litis without proper written submissions, as demonstrated in Vel V/S Knowles and James Lesperance. The Plaintiffs' failure to address prescription and vagueness in the Counter-claim led to their plea being dismissed for lack of evidence and procedural impropriety.

Precedent Name

• James Lesperance and Allen Ernestine and Ors
• Nourrice & Ors v Nicette
• Vel V/S Knowles
• Charlemagne Grancourt and another V/S Christopher Gill
• Yves Maurel and Ors V/S Mary Gears and Ors
• Armand Khany & Others v Leonel Cannie
• Boldrini V/s Pillay
• Gayon v Collie
• Albert v St Jorre
• Paul Chow V/S Josselin Bossy
• Reddy & Anor v Ramkalawan
• Jeanne Lesperance V Lucine Vidot
• Public Utilities Corporation V/S Eliza
• Whoolly Pillay V/S Joe Dingwall

Key Disputed Contract Clauses

• Clause 7.a established a 2-year rental agreement for Seybrew distribution premises at Providence, requiring monthly rent of SR 40,000 to the first party, payable by the 5th of each month.
• Clause 7.c provided that if the second party vacated with a 3-month notice and the first party couldn't pay SR 9,500,000 upon receiving possession, interest at commercial bank rates would apply to unpaid sums until settlement.
• Clause 7.b stipulated that if the second party vacated the premises without notice, the first party must pay SR 9,500,000 within 3 months of accepting possession of the vacated premises.

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• the Defendant had raised a plea In Limine Litis after the time the Plaintiffs have closed their case and the Defendant had completed giving his testimony in Court of which in any case it was after filing his defence to the Plaint. As a result of the above case law... this Court finds that the Defendant is deemed to have waived his objection as to the prescriptive period.
• It is not in dispute that the Plaintiffs only vacated the premises at Providence on the 25th November 2019. Since the Plaint was filed on the 4th of October 2021 of which the cause of action of the Plaintiffs has arisen on the 25th November 2019, the date that the Plaintiffs had vacated the said premises at Providence and as this Court has already ruled in this matter at paragraph 24 of this ruling that this matter is prescribed by 5 years, this Court finds that this matter is not prescribed by law.
• the Plaintiffs have raised a plea In Limine Litis based on prescription after the time that the Plaintiffs had closed their case and the Defendant had completed giving his testimony in Court... this Court finds that the Plaintiffs are deemed to have waived their objection as to the prescriptive period.

Damages / Relief Type