The Board of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church in Seychelles v Mission Investment Limited (CS 46/2017) [2018] SCSC 8055 (30 January 2018)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Civil Side: CS 46/2017 [2018] SCSC ~7- THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN SEYCHELLES Plaintiff versus MISSION INVESTMENT LIMITED Defendant Heard: Counsel: 25th of January 2018 Ms Pool standing in for Mr Lucas for plaintiff Delivered: 31st of January 2018 JUDGMENT Nunkoo J [1] By this plaint the Plaintiffs are asking the court for a judgment against the defendant for breach of a lease agreement entered sometime in May 2009, whereby the Defendant, represented by Igor Likhachev, a Russian, agreed to develop the leased land into a tourist project. The lease was for forty years. The project consisted of the construction of a main building of about 1000 sq. metres, comprising of a souvenir shop, a cafe, restaurant and other buildings that would serve as tourist related activities. [2] In May 2010 the Defendant commenced the works and in 2014 however the works were abandoned. [3] The Plaintiffs are claiming a judgment from the court declaring that as a result of the breaches of the terms and conditions of the lease the lease was ipso facto rescinded and the Plaintiff was entitled to cancel it. [4] He also claimed: (i) that the Plaintiff be granted full repossession of Title 13262. (ii) that the Defendant pays the plaintiff the sum ofRs 605,000.00 plus interest at the commercial rate of 10 % p.a. (iii) that the Defendant pays the Plaintiffs costs for this suit. [5] This case was called on 8 November 2017. The Defendant was not present nor represented. Counsel for Plaintiff moved for exparte hearing. Motion was granted by the Court and the hearing fixed to 25 January 2018. [6] On 25 January the case was heard exparte. The Plaintiffs main witness, Mr Gerald Joseph Pragassen, Secretary of the Board of Trustees of The Roman Catholic Church was heard. [7] He deponed and produced several documents and more specifically the lease agreement. [8] He gave evidence to the effect that rent was due since November 2015 to date at Rs 5000 per month (total Rs 135,000.00) [9] The Plaintiff were entitled to an initial income of 5% to be increased subsequently of the gross sales from the project once it would take off its commercial operations, as per Clause 4 of the lease agreement. As the project was not terminated the defendant, were not able to make this payment; this constitutes a breach according to the plaintiff. [10] However, the claim in respect of financial loss should fail as the payment was based on the sales taking place. As there were no such sales logically it cannot be entertained; there was a condition precedent. That condition had to be fulfilled. [11] Further the Defendant failed to keep the land in a clean condition, in breach of clause 13. [12] After hearing the unchallenged evidence of the Plaintiff, I am satisfied that there was a valid lease agreement and that the Defendants have been in breach of the said lease agreement. [13] I therefore declare that the lease has already come to an end as a result of the breaches of the Defendant, as stipulated in clause 17 of the agreement, and that the Plaintiff are entitled to repossess their land. I therefore order the Defendants to vacate the leased parcel of land immediately. [14] I order the Defendant to make the following payments: Rent for period January to Date SR 135,000.00 With interests at commercial rate. [15] That the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs for this suit. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 315t of January 2018. S Nunkoo Judge of the Supreme Court 3