Supreme Court of Mauritius, 23 janvier 2020, 2020 PL1 1 – A M A L Macky & Ors v. B P Khooblah
A M A L Macky & Ors v. B P Khooblah 2020 PL1 1 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (Div I) Cause Number: - 142/2017 In the matter of: - CN 142/2017 Ahmud Mahummud Abdool Latiff MACKY & Ors Plaintiffs v. Bibi Parveen KHOOBLAH Defendant And in the matter of: - CN 143/2017 Ahmud Mahummud Abdool Latiff MACKY...
3 min de lecture · 658 mots
A M A L Macky & Ors v. B P Khooblah
2020 PL1 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (Div I) Cause Number: – 142/2017 In the matter of: – CN 142/2017 Ahmud Mahummud Abdool Latiff MACKY & Ors Plaintiffs v. Bibi Parveen KHOOBLAH Defendant And in the matter of: – CN 143/2017 Ahmud Mahummud Abdool Latiff MACKY & Ors Plaintiffs v. Hassen BUXOO & Anor Defendants
And in the matter of: – CN 144/2017 Ahmud Mahummud Abdool Latiff MACKY & Ors
Plaintiffs v. Jhaneer MANAAR Defendant And in the matter of: – CN 145/2017 Ahmud Mahummud Abdool Latiff MACKY & Ors Plaintiffs v. Ibney Saoud ANDHULL Defendant RULING
All four cases relate to an action under the Landlord and Tenant Act for an order for possession of tenement on the ground that the rented premises are in a dilapidated condition and are therefore not safe for the tenants. The cases were consolidated at the previous hearing and submissions recorded in case bearing cause number 142/ 2017.
Before the start of the trial, learned counsel for the plaintiffs informed the court that plaintiff no 3 has passed away and moved to put plaintiffs no 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 out of cause. Learned counsel for the defendants has objected to the amendment.
Learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that the present action is not an action in the nature of an “action conservatoire” under article 813 of the Civil Code since the aim is not to preserve the undivided legal rights of the parties.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand has relied on the authority of A Choo Ping Fen & Ors v. M B Tickfine & Ors 1998 SCJ 38 and Purmanan Rughooputh & Anor v. Gaetan Lavigilante & Ors 2018 SCJ 201 to submit that the present action is an “action conservatoire” falling under Article 813 of the Civil Code because it seeks “la conservation des bien indivis”. In particular, he referred to a quote at page 6 of the judgment of Purmanan Rughooputh & Anor (supra), which reads as follows: – “Indivision (Régime legal) by Christophe Albiges, Professeur à l’Université Montpellier I, published in Rép. Civ. Dalloz, mars 2011… 246. Mesures matérielles. – une première catégorie d’actes conservatoires correspond à des mesures matérielles nécessaires à la conservation du bien indivis et mises en oeuvre, avec des frais limités, par un indivisaire seul. Tel a pu être le case de la remise en état d’une toiture, les travaux entrepris étaient destinés à empêcher la chute de tuiles dans une rue très fréquentée et à proximité d’un arrêt d’autobus”.
I have considered the submission of both counsels and wish to point out the following. The present case is one wherein the plaintiffs seek for an order for repossession of tenement on the grounds that the premises are in a dilapidated condition as opposed to one where the plaintiffs and/or plaintiff as owners/ owner holding undivided rights in a property seek to effect certain repairs to preserve the property in lite. This, in my view is a material distinction which needs to be made.
The cause of action of the plaintiffs is one for repossession of tenement under the Landlord and Tenant Act which governs the rights and obligations of parties in a landlord and tenant relationship, and in my view does not amount to an “action conservatoire” under article 813 al 1 of the Code Civil.
For the above reasons, and in the light of the previous ruling delivered by this court on 24 th
September 2018, I uphold the objection of learned counsel for the defendants and set aside the motion of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
S Chui [Ruling delivered by S Chui (Mrs) Senior District Magistrate] [Ruling delivered on 23 rd January 2020]
Sources officielles : consulter la page source · PDF officiel
Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain
Articles similaires
A propos de cette decision
Décisions similaires
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 15 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 7 - Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun
Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun 2026 PMP 7 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 4868/25 In the matter of:- Police v Ravi Kumar Seeborun JUGMENT A. Introduction 1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Driving without due care and attention in breach of Sections 123C (1)(a) and 52 Second Schedule of Road Traffic Act as amended. 2....
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 14 mai 2026, 2026 PMP 6 - Yoan Jonathan Attiow
Yoan Jonathan Attiow 2026 PMP 6 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAMPLEMOUSSES CN: 2613/20 In the matter of:- Police v Yoan Jonathan Atthiow JUGMENT A. Introduction 1. The Accused stands charged with an offence of Assaulting an agent of the civil authority in breach of Section 158 and 159 of the Criminal Code. 2. The information avers that on or...
Maurice
Supreme Court of Mauritius
Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 SAV 67 - POLICE v K K MOHUR
Page 1 POLICE v K K MOHUR 2026 SAV 67 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAVANNE Cause No.: 1586/24 Police v/s Karan Kumar Mohur Judgment The accused stands charged with the offence of « Breach of Protection From Domestic Violence Act » in breach of Sections 2 and 13(2) of the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. As per the information...