JCPC/2024/0083

Marie Josiane Lisette Saint-Avit (Appellant) v Farhad Beeharry and Beebee Sultana Beeharry (Respondents)

Hearing listed

Case summary
Appeal

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2024/0083

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Marie Josiane Lisette Saint-Avit

Respondent(s)

Farhad Beeharry

Beebee Sultana Beeharry

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that (1) the Respondents’ occupation period was not interrupted, and (2) the Appellant’s trial was fair?

Facts

This appeal concerns a dispute about ownership of a parcel of land at Royal Road, L’Escalier, Mauritius (the “Land”). The Respondents, whose family occupies a house on the adjacent land, allege that their late father had acquired the Land through adverse possession by cultivating fruit and vegetables thereon for more than 30 years as his sole source of income. In 2004, the Appellant who resides in France claimed that she inherited the land as a part of a larger parcel. She commissioned a survey of the Land and erected a fence to prevent the Respondents’ father and his family from entering it. The Respondents brought a claim seeking a declaration that they are the sole owners of the Land, an order preventing the Appellant from erecting the fence, and damages. The Appellant counterclaimed for damages. The judge dismissed the Respondents’ claim on the basis that their submissions were insufficiently supported by evidence. The Court of Appeal allowed the Respondents’ appeal because the judge had made a number of errors, including wrongly addressing the identity of the plot as a disputed issue, failing to determine the dispute concerning the Respondents’ family occupation of the Land, wrongly computing of the period of occupation, and failing to decide the Appellant’s counterclaim. The Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the matter to the judge. Upon retrial, the same judge reconsidered the matter in light of the Court of Appeal’s guidance. This time she accepted the Respondents’ evidence, granted the declaration that the Respondents are the sole owners, and ordered the Appellant not to erect the fence and to pay moral damages to the Respondents. The Appellant appealed on various grounds, including that she was denied a fair trial. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal as frivolous and an abuse of process. The Appellant now appeals to his Majesty’s Privy Council.