GROUNDS OF DECISION

The application by way of an Originating Summons for the removal of caveat, viz. Instrument no. L16305/1995 lodged in two parcels of land (hereinafter called the "said land"), of which the applicant is the registered proprietor was fixed for hearing on 29.8.96. The application was supported by the affidavit of Ho Yen Teng. The respondent filed an affidavit in opposition and served it on the applicant on 26th July, 1996.

By a letter dated 26.8.96 the applicant wrote in to the court requesting that the case be adjourned as the counsel handling the case for the applicant, Mr. Bernard Lanat was involved in the forth coming State Election, which took place on 7th & 8th September, 1996. The case was vacated on the appointed date and re-fixed for hearing on a later date, i.e. 26th September, 1996. A day before the hearing date, the applicant by a letter dated 25th September, 1996 which was faxed to the court on the same date and produced in court this [2] morning, requested the court to adjourn the case to another date but no reason for the request was disclosed. Mr. Bernard Lanat had no valid reason, only that he had not enough time to prepare an affidavit in reply. There was ample time within which Mr. Bernard Lanat could have filed an affidavit if he had wished to do so. As the application for adjournment was without reasonable excuse, the application for adjournment was refused.

At the hearing the court found that no triable issue had been raised. From the evidence, it is shown that the respondent had a caveatable interest in the said land as she had contributed some money towards the purchase price of the said land, vide the affidavit with the receipts therein, Exhibit CYF-1, CYF-2 and CYF-3. Furthermore, she is the wife of the applicant, and still married to him, and by virtue of Section 76 of the Law Reform (Marriage & Divorce) Act, 1976, the court has the power to order division of matrimonial assets, and there is prima facie evidence that she has a beneficial interest in equity in the said land. The general rule is that when a fact is asserted by one party in an affidavit, and it is not disputed by the other party by affidavit, it is deemed that the fact asserted is true. In the instant case, there is no dispute in the respondent's assertion of fact, the court accepted the respondent's case.

The applicant has failed to prove its case, and in the circumstances the application is dismissed with costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document