Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
QUESTION 1
(a) Mr. Michaels claim before the Supreme Court for damages
against Mr. Peter has been non-suited following an objection in law
taken by the defence. Mr. Michael wishes to appeal.
(b) Mr. Franco explains to you that he was summonsed to appear before
the Judge in Chambers on the 1st July 2011 to show cause why an
order to restrain and prohibit him from making use of confidential
information which he obtained during his employment with Android
Co. Ltd. should not be made interlocutory. Although he was aware of
the date of hearing, he did not attend and the order was issued. He
calls on you on the 20th July 2011 and wishes to apply for a new
trial.
Question 2
Question 1
On 20 June 2013, it came to his knowledge that the appeal had not been
prosecuted before the Supreme Court due to a breakdown of communication
between his attorney and the attorneys clerk.
In view of the above, Modo is now moving the appellate court to allow him to
prosecute his appeal.
Question 4
2
In a judgment handed by the Intermediate Court Naren Hinder (then
defendant) has been ordered to quit, leave and vacate a plot of land situated
at Ruisseau Rouge of which Treasury Cove Co. Ltd (then plaintiff) claimed to
be the lawful owner by virtue of a duly transcribed and registered title deed.
Naren Hinder has been also ordered to pay Rs 10,000 as damages to the
company.
The case for the plaintiff before the trial court was to the effect that it is the
owner, invirtue of a title deed TV 380/574, of a plot of agricultural land of
an extent of 2110 m2 situated at Ruisseau Rouge which it had leased since
1990 to one Roger Puthin for the cultivation of watercress.
In December 1999 Hinder unlawfully started occupying the said plot without
any right and in breach of the plaintiffs rights as owner as well as in breach
of the lessors rights.
The Magistrate found that the plea in liminelitis was premature and could
only be dealt with after evidence had been adduced. The case of Hinder
before the trial court was to the effect that his late grandfather, his father
and himself have been cultivating the said plot of land with watercress and
have been earning their livelihood from such cultivation.
He has averred that their occupation was peaceful and au vu et au su of
one and all and that his father is the rightful owner of the land in lite for
having occupied same with all the requisites of acquisitive prescription.
In his judgment the Magistrate of the Intermediate Court found that Hinder
had not been able to establish acquisitive prescription inasmuch as no
affidavit of prescription had been affirmed nor any title by virtue of
prescription, transcribed by the appellant or his father. He also found that
Hinder had not occupied the plot in lite in an unequivocal manner and
titre de propritaire and that his possession had not been continue et non
interrompue in as much as the company had entered into lease agreements
in respect of the plot with Puthin ever since 1990.
The Magistrate on the other hand found that Hinder did not seem to dispute
the fact that the plaintiff was the owner of the plot of land by virtue of a title
3
deed as the evidence of Mr. Dechaud remained unchallenged on this issue.
He further found from the evidence of Mr. Dechaud that the value of the
land is around Rs 325,000 and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the
present court and came to the conclusion that the case for the plaintiff had
been proved on a balance of probabilities.
Discuss the legal issues which may be raised in that connection on appeal.