Ah Lan Ah Yan (Appellant) v Johnny Lo Can Chung and 3 others (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0071

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Ah Lan AH YAN

Respondent(s)

Johnny Lo Can Chung, Tany Lo Can Chung, Chokny Lo Can Chung and Kaitny Lo Can Chung (personally and as proxy of the above named three respondents by virtue of an instrument dated 26 May 2008)

Issue

(1) Did the trial judge and Supreme Court err by failing to consider the Defendant’s argument that the proceedings were an abuse of process? (2) Were the findings of fact made by the trial judge and upheld by the Supreme Court plainly wrong? (3) Were the proceedings procedurally flawed because the document appointing the Respondents’ proxy had not been filed in the Registry of the Supreme Court?

Facts

The Respondents are co-owners of a property situated at the corner of Camizard and Labourdonnais Streets in the village of Mahebourg (“the Property”), which they inherited from their parents. The Appellant is the surviving spouse of the late Mr Ang Niow Ah Yan, the brother of Respondent’s mother, and is the occupier of the Property. The Respondents claim that the Appellant occupies the Property rent-free and is therefore a mere licensee. They argue that, following the death of their parents, they revoked her license to occupy the Property, but that the Appellant has failed to vacate. Accordingly, they seek an order requiring the Appellant to vacate the Property. The Appellant’s case is that she is a protected tenant. She submits that she and her husband have lived in the Property since the 1960s and that, during her husband’s lifetime, rent was paid and deducted directly from his salary, as he was employed by the Respondents’ father. Following her husband’s death in 1990, neither the Respondents nor their mother collected rent from her. The Appellant argues that she had always been willing to pay rent. On 9 September 2020, the District Court of Grand Port held that the Appellant was not a protected tenant, had never paid rent, and occupied the Property as a mere licensee. As her license had been revoked, the Magistrate ordered the Appellant to quit, leave and vacate the Property. The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Mauritius, which dismissed the appeal. She now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

24 July 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top