IN COURT THIS WEEK
COURT OF APPEAL SETTLES THE RIGHT OF INHERITANCE OF ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
1. The Court of Appeal has finally settled the issue of right of inheritance of illegitimate children in the case of V.T. Pillay v/s Ramesh Pillay & others. The Appellants are the heirs of one V. Pillay while the Respondents are children from another relationship (illegitimate children). Before his death Thirumeny Pillay had given a power of attorney to Ramesh Pillay to be his agent with power to deal with matters his concerning his business in
2. However, the power of attorney did not authorize Ramesh to transfer the said businesses to him. After the death of Thirumeny, Ramesh did exactly what he was not authorize to do under the power of attorney. After the Supreme Court had delivered its judgment, the Appellants filed an appeal to the Seychelles Court of Appeal contesting the Supreme Court judgment. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Supreme Court did not consider all the issues in the case comprehensively and judiciously. Instead, the Court of Appeal concluded, the Supreme Court “…ended up in making orders which are in themselves confusing unimplementable as well as contrary to law.”
3. Amongst other things, the Appellants requested the Court of Appeal to consider the position of the law with regard to distribution of such assets to the children born out of wedlock.
4. The Court of Appeal commented that the following facts are uncontroverted. First, is that the Respondents were born out of wedlock. Third, Ramesh has not only failed to account for the money and other assets realized from the time he was given a power of attorney but also that he has sold such businesses to himself.
5. The Court of Appeal remarked, “It does not need to take much of our time to rule that the action of Ramesh to sell the business to himself was void ab initio. We therefore order that the properties and the businesses so sold should be returned to the estate of the deceased Thirumeny.”
6. The Court of Appeal further stated that “it appears to us that while ordering for the distribution of the assets of the parties, the trial judge did not take into account the provisions of the law relating to succession. Article 760 of the Civil Code clearly states:
“Natural children whose father or mother, at the time of their conception was married to another person, shall be entitled to succeed together with any legitimate children of that marriage, in that case, however, the share of each such natural child shall be one half of what it would have been if all the children of the deceased had been legitimate…”
7. What the law considers as “natural” children is the same thing as what most of us know as “illegitimate” children. The law clearly states that these children can inherit half of what the legitimate children can inherit, of their parents’ estate.
8. The Court of Appeal commented that “it is evident therefore that the trial judge did not comply with the law. Instead he made two fundamental errors. First error was his order “to share the property and businesses equally amongst the heirs.” This could not be possible in view of the clear provisions of Article 760 quoted above.
9. Second error was to pass over the responsibility “upon the executors to ascertain whether the heirs are in agreement as to the sharing ratio.” That could not be seen that way. The parties had come to court for a definite decision to resolve their differences. The Court’s role therefore, could not be passed over to the joint executors.
10. Therefore the appeal is allowed to the extent shown therein. The allocation made by the trial judge is void and is therefore set aside. The case is remitted to the Supreme Court. Mr. France Bonte appeared as Attorney for the Appellants and Mr. Francis Chang-Sam for the Respondents.