Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Supreme Court of Nauru |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU
YAREN DISTRICT
CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL CAUSE NO 2 OF 2016
BETWEEN CHADWICK TSIODE
APPlLICANT
AND
ZELLA DOWIYOGO RESPONDENT
Before: Khan, J
Date of Hearing: 25 August 2016
Date of Judgement: 7 September 2016
Case may be cited as: Tsiode v Dowiyogo
CATCHWORDS:
Intestate estate of both parents is shared between all issues in equal shares- section 16(d) of Succession, Probate and Administration Act 1976.
Estate property- cannot vest in a beneficiary- unless Deed of Renunciation is executed by all remaining beneficiaries.
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr V Clodumar (Pleader)
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr K Talenoa (Pleader)
JUDGEMENT
1. There are 2 modes of commencing a civil action which are:-
(a)by a Writ of Summons; or
(b) by Originating Summons.
(a) Writ of Summons
A Writ of Summons is a formal document addressed to the defendant requiring him to enter an appearance if he wishes to dispute the plaintiff’s claim. Actions including substantial dispute of facts are commenced by Writ of Summons.
(b) Originating Summons
An action is commenced by way of Originating Summons where it is required by statute; or the dispute is concerned with matters of which there is unlikely to be any substantial dispute of facts.
2. This action was commenced by the plaintiff by of Originating Summons. It involved substantial dispute of facts and should have, in my view, been commenced by a Writ of Summons.
Applicant’s Claim
3. The applicant claims to be an owner of a garage. His claim is that being the owner he allowed the respondent to occupy it on a temporary basis and the respondent is now refusing to vacate and he seeks an order for vacant possession against the respondent and her family.
4. The applicant is the respondent’s brother and the children of Mella and DetemaigoTsiode.
5. In his affidavit at [6] the applicant states that “the building was originally a garage.” He further stated that the garage was an existing structure. It had a corrugated iron roof and corrugated iron walls and concrete floor. He stated that he and his 2 siblings who included the respondent and the other sister Zelda Stephen (Zelda) decided to convert the garage into a store. It cost them the sum of $15,000 in total and each of them contributed a sum of $5,000.
6. After the renovation was completed the respondent asked for refund of her contribution of $5,000 as she was facing financial difficulties and he gave her the sum of $5,000. Later in 2003 or thereabouts the other sister Zelda also asked for a refund of her contribution of $5,000 and the applicant refunded her the sum of $5,000.
7. In paragraph 10 of his affidavit, the applicant stated “.... since I am the only partner who did not withdraw my share in the business, I claim ownership of the premises and no one in the family protested then and now.”
8. In 2010 to 2011 he rented the premises to a company called Skaff for a period of 1 year and thereafter he rented it to Capella & Partners for a period of 1 year as well for the sum of $250 per month. It is not clear as to how much was it rented to Skaff for. The applicant kept all the rental income.
Intestate Estate
11. The intestate estate of a deceased is governed by the Succession, Probate and Administration Act 1976 (the Act).
“if the intestate has left issues but no wife or husband surviving, then the issues shall take, stirpes and not per capita, the whole estate of the intestate absolutely.”
Who is the owner of the store?
Issues for determination
DATED this 7day of September 2016
Mohammed Shafiullah Khan
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/nr/cases/NRSC/2016/23.html