Pauline v Freminot ((Civil Appeal SCA 06/2025) [2025] (Arising in MA 238/2021 out of DV159/2016 SCSC 328)) [2025] SCCA 20 (18 August 2025)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES Reportable [2025] Civil Appeal SCA 06/2025 (18 August 2025) (Arising in MA 238/2021 OUT OF DV159/2016 SCSC 328) In the matter Between SEMO HOUDIEP KEMINI PAULINE (rep. by Mr. Frank Ally) Appellant And DONATIEN EDGARD FREMINOT (rep. by Mr. Kieran B Shah) Respondent Neutral Citation: Pauline v Freminot (Civil Appeal SCA 06/2025) [2025] (Arising in MA Before: Summary: Heard: Delivered: 238/2021 out of DV159/2016 SCSC 328) Twomey-Woods, Robinson, Andre JJA Appeal – Petition for property Order – Division of matrimonial property under Article 259 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, 2020 – Judgment by Consent 4th August 2025 18 August 2025 The Court makes the following Orders: ORDERS (i) The Judgment by Consent executed by the parties is adopted and entered as a formal judgment of this Court. (ii) The Judgment of the Supreme Court in MA No. 238/2021, delivered on 11th February 2025, is varied and amended in accordance with the terms of the said Judgment by Consent. (iii) Each party shall bear their own costs in respect of this appeal. ANDRE, JA JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION [1] This is an appeal arising from the Notice of Appeal dated 12th March, 2025, filed by Semo Houdiepe Kemini Pauline (Appellant) against Donatien Freminot (Respondent). The appeal challenges the Supreme Court’s decision delivered on 11th February, 2025 in MA 238/2021 arising in DV 159/2016 by Judge Carolus, pertaining to the division of matrimonial property of the parties. ORDERS OF THE COURT A QUO [2] The Supreme Court made the following orders: A. The respondent shall pay to the petitioner the sum of Seychelles Rupees One Million Ninety-One Thousand and Ninety-Two and Cents Sixty-Four (SCR1,091,092.64) representing the petitioner's share of the property (parcel C181 and the house and other structures thereon) within six months of this judgment. B. Upon payment of the said sum to the petitioner, she shall vacate the property and give possession of the same to the respondent. C. In the event that the respondent fails to effect payment as ordered under paragraph (a), the petitioner shall pay the respondent the sum of Seychelles Rupees Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seven and Cents Thirty-Six (SCR2,153,907.36)representing the respondent's share of the property, within the succeeding six months, whereupon the respondent shall transfer the property to the petitioner's sole ownership. D. In the event that neither party is able to comply with the foregoing within the stipulated time-frames, the property shall be sold and the proceeds thereof shared between the parties, in accordance with their entitlement as found by this Court. THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS COURT [3] The Appellant as per the cited Notice of Appeal appeals against the Supreme Court’s decision upon the grounds of appeal set out in paragraph 2. Grounds of Appeal 1) The Learned Trial Judge erred in her interpretation and application of the law when she relied primarily on financial contribution of the parties as the basis on which to depart from equal shares in the property including the matrimonial home acquired by the parties or any of them during the relationship in the context of the relationship and held by the parties or any of them at the termination of the relationship (hereinafter the “matrimonial property") and thus, erroneously concluding that the shares in the matrimonial home are 30-70 in favour of the Respondent and shares in the property C181 are 20-80 in favour of the Respondent. 2) The Learned Trial Judge failed to take cognisance of, be guided by and apply settled law, binding precedents, principles and jurisprudence governing the division and allocation of the matrimonial property and thus, erroneously concluded that the Respondent could be awarded the matrimonial property to the exclusion of the Appellant. 3) The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and on the facts in her failure to apply the law governing equal sharing of matrimonial property unless it would be repugnant to justice. The Learned Trial Judge failed to take cognisance of the term 'repugnant to justice' when adjudicating on the matter before her and resultantly, she erroneously departed from the principle of equal sharing, in concluding that the equal shares could be departed from in the manner she did, i.e. shares in the matrimonial home are 30-70 in favour of the Respondent and shares in the property C181 are 20-80 in favour of the Respondent. 4) The Learned Trial Judge erred when she made a finding that the Appellant had less time to take care of the home and family when no evidence was led to that effect, and thus erroneously, unjustly and unfairly reducing the Appellant's contribution to the relationship and subsequently, awarding her a lesser share in the matrimonial property. 5) The Learned Trial Judge erred when she was inconsistent in her appreciation and evaluation of the evidence regarding financial and in-kind contribution by the Petitioner to the matrimonial home and by extension, to the relationship. In this regard, the Learned Trial Judge reduced the in-kind contribution of the Appellant towards the matrimonial home by stating that the Appellant was working braiding hair, and simultaneously rejecting that the same trade could have garnered enough resources to contribute to the matrimonial property and by extension the relationship. [4] The Appellant further seeks the relief set out in paragraph 3 of the said Notice of Appeal as follows: 1) The Judgment of the court a quo be set aside. 2) The Appellant be declared a lawful and beneficial owner of the matrimonial property. 3) Alternatively to (2), the Appellant be granted the priority and opportunity to compensate the Respondent for his share in the matrimonial property, and upon such compensation, the said property be transferred solely into the Appellant's ownership. 4) Any other order the Court deems fit in the circumstances. 5) Costs in the Supreme Court and in the Seychelles Court of Appeal. JUDGMENT BY CONSENT [5] Following the filing of the appeal, the parties have entered into a Judgment by Consent dated 31st July, 2025, fully and finally settling the appeal, and varying the Supreme Court’s judgment. [6] On 4th August, 2025, during a sitting of this Court, the parties appeared and confirmed their agreement to the terms of the Judgment by Consent in open court. [7] The material terms of the Judgment by Consent are reproduced hereunder as agreed and signed by the parties: 1. Except as otherwise provided in this Judgment, the parties shall maintain the division of property and other orders as per the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by Her Ladyship Justice Ellen Carolus on 11th February 2025 in MA No. 238/2021. 2. In this Judgment, "Purchase Price" means the sum of Seychelles Rupees Two Million, One Hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seven and Cents Thirty-Six (SCR2,153,907.36) representing the Respondent’s share in the Property as per the Judgment of the Supreme Court. 3. The Respondent, Donatien Edgard Freminot, hereby agrees, in consideration of the Purchase Price, to relinquish and transfer his undivided share in the Property to the Appellant. 4. In consideration of the Respondent relinquishing his share in the Property, the Appellant shall pay the Respondent the Purchase Price according to the terms and conditions herein. 5. In consequence of this transfer, the Respondent shall abandon his right, title, and share in the Property (including the dwelling house and any other structures thereon) in favour of the Appellant, Pauline Houdipe Kemini Semo. 6. The Respondent acknowledges that the Appellant intends to obtain funding for a substantial part of the Purchase Price by way of a loan from a financial institution. 7. The Appellant shall pay the Purchase Price as follows: 7.1 A sum of Seychelles Rupees Five Hundred Thousand (SCR 500,000/-) upon execution of this Judgment by Consent (which sum has already been paid and credited to the clients’ account of the Respondent’s Attorney and receipt thereof is hereby acknowledged by the Respondent); and 7.2 The remaining balance of Seychelles Rupees One Million Six Hundred and Fifty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seven and Thirty-Six Cents (SCR 1,653,907.36) within a period of six (6) months from the date of entry of this Judgment. 8. In the event the Appellant fails to pay the said sum within the stipulated period, the property shall be sold by licitation or by private agreement. 9. In the event that the transfer of the Property contemplated by this Judgment does not materialise and either party initiates a sale of the Property by private agreement or licitation, then: 9.1 The initiating party shall notify the other party in writing of their intention to proceed with a sale of the Property by private agreement or licitation. Where the sale will be by private agreement, they shall provide the other with relevant details regarding the proposed sale, including timelines, price and any proposed purchaser, where applicable; 9.2 The parties shall ensure that the Property is sold for not less than the sum of Three Million, Two Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand Seychelles Rupees (SCR3,245,000.00), which represents the total value of their respective shares in the Property as determined by the Supreme Court; 9.3 The sum of SCR 500,000/- shall be refunded to the Appellant from the sale proceeds, as it does not constitute a deposit but a partial advance on the Purchase Price, which shall be refunded upon the completion of the sale and receipt of the purchase price; 9.4 The net proceeds of the sale (after deducting and paying the Appellant the sum of SCR 500,000/- and any other cost of the sale) shall be shared between the parties proportionately in accordance with their shares as declared in the Supreme Court judgment. 10. The Respondent agrees and consents to the transfer of the Property to the Appellant and to the Appellant mortgaging or charging the Property in favour of a financial institution for the purpose of obtaining a loan, if such is required by the financial institution, to pay the remaining balance of the Purchase Price. The Respondent further agrees to execute all necessary documents to effect the transfer of the Property prior to receiving full payment of the balance of the Purchase Price, on the condition that the financial institution provides the Respondent with a written undertaking confirming that the balance of the Purchase Price will be paid directly to the Respondent or his Attorney upon registration and stamping of the instrument of transfer and instrument of charge. 11. The parties agree that the transfer of ownership of the Property shall be completed within six (6) months of the date of the entry of this Judgment, unless otherwise extended by mutual written agreement, or automatically extended in the event that the stamping and registration of the transfer and/or charge instruments are in progress within that period. In such a case, the Appellant shall notify the Respondent of the delay. 12. Upon payment of the Purchase Price and completion of the transfer, the transfer shall be fully completed and the Respondent shall have no further interest in the Property. 13. In the event that the Appellant pays to the Respondent the sum of SCR 2,153,907.36 within the stipulated time period and the Respondent thereafter fails, refuses, or neglects to execute the instrument of transfer of title in respect of land parcel C181, this Judgment shall take effect as a valid and sufficient instrument of transfer within the meaning of section 75 of the Land Registration Act. Accordingly, the Land Registrar is hereby authorised and directed, upon being satisfied of proof of payment of the sum of SCR 2,153,907.36 by the Appellant to the Respondent, to: 13.1 Register this Judgment as a transfer in favour of the Appellant; and 13.2 Rectify the land register to reflect the Appellant as the sole proprietor of the Property pursuant to the Land Registration Act. 14. The parties agree that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Side MA238/2021, which is currently under appeal, shall be deemed varied and amended by consent to reflect the terms set out in this Judgment by Consent. This Judgment by Consent shall therefore form part of the judgment of the Court and shall have the same force and effect. 15. Each party shall bear their own costs in respect of this Judgment and the appeal. 7