Appleby Mauritius redefines the legal landscape of seizure prior to claim by successfully defending contempt of court proceedings based on an 1808 legislation.
The Appellant, a leasing company, filed contempt of court proceedings against the Respondent for having opposed the execution of a seizure prior to claim "saisie revendication". The objection was made by the Respondent verbally to the Usher in charge of the execution of the seizure pursuant to Article 829 of the Code de Procedure Civile 1808, a provision no longer being observed and applied in practice in Mauritius.
The Court of Civil Appeal clarified the position and held that to hold the Respondent liable to be committed for contempt of Court for refusing to comply with the ex parte order made by the Judge in Chambers would fall foul of the express provisions of Article 829 and deprive the Respondent of a statutory recourse available to him under the Code thereby setting aside the appeal filed on behalf of the Appellant with costs.
JUDGEMENT: CIM FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD V BOOJHAWON B. :
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.