THE SEYCHELLES LAW REPORTS DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT, CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND COURT OF APPEAL ________________ 2017 _________________ PART 2 (Pp i-vi, 269-552) Published by Authority of the Chief Justice i (2017) SLR EDITORIAL BOARD Chief Justice – ex officio Attorney-General – ex officio Mr Kieran Shah of Middle Temple, Barrister Mr Bernard Georges of Gray’s Inn, Barrister CITATION These reports are cited thus: (2017) SLR Printed by ii THE SEYCHELLES JUDICIARY THE COURT OF APPEAL Hon F MacGregor, President Hon S Domah Hon A Fernando Hon J Msoffe Hon M Twomey THE SUPREME COURT (AND CONSTITUTIONAL COURT) Hon M Twomey,Chief Justice Hon D Karunakaran Hon B Renaud Hon M Burhan Hon G Dodin Hon F Robinson Hon E De Silva Hon C McKee Hon D Akiiki-Kiiza Hon R Govinden Hon S Govinden Hon S Nunkoo Hon M Vidot Hon L Pillay Master E Carolus iii (2017) SLR iv CONTENTS Digest of Cases ................................................................................................ vii Cases Reported Amesbury v President of Seychelles & Constitutional Appointments Authority ........ 69 Benstrong v Lobban ............................................................................................... 317 Bonnelame v National Assembly of Seychelles ..................................................... 491 D’Acambra & Esparon v Esparon ........................................................................... 343 David & Ors v Public Utilities Corporation .............................................................. 439 Delorie v Government of Seychelles ...................................................................... 147 Dine et al, Re ......................................................................................................... 243 Duffets v Lapourielle................................................................................................. 75 Eastern European Engineering Ltd v SJ (Seychelles) [any disputes] ....................... 55 Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd [foreign award] . 159 Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd [agreed order] .. 497 Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd [ex parte order] 523 Edmond & Ors v Chetty & Government of Seychelles ........................................... 137 Ernesta & Ors v R .................................................................................................. 379 Fanchette v Estico .................................................................................................. 251 Financial Intelligence Unit v Contact Lenses Ltd & Ors .............................................. 1 Fregate Island Private Ltd v DF Project Properties ................................................ 263 Hall v Parcou ............................................................................................................ 45 Hedge Funds Investment Management Ltd v Hedgeintro International Ltd .............. 23 Hermitte v Attorney-General & Quatre ................................................................... 501 Houareau and Carpin v Karunakaran, Constitutional Appointments Authority and Attorney-General .................................................................................................... 445 Hoareau v Hoareau ................................................................................................ 403 Karunakaran v Constitutional Appointments Authority ........................................... 269 Karunakaran v Constitutional Appointments Authority; In Re s 118 of Code of Civil Procedure ............................................................................................................... 347 KHI (Seychelles) 01 Ltd v Elite Club Ltd & Ors ...................................................... 483 Kinrade, Williamson & Barton, Ex Parte ................................................................. 505 Labrosse v R .......................................................................................................... 411 LCP Development v Island Development & Government of Seychelles ..................... 9 Malvina v Bibi ......................................................................................................... 509 Mathiot, Re ............................................................................................................... 51 Ministry of Land Use and Housing v Stravens ........................................................ 291 Mondon, Ex Parte................................................................................................... 499 Morel v NDEA, Government of Seychelles & Attorney-General ............................... 91 v (2017) SLR Morin & Ors v Barbier ............................................................................................. 103 Parti Lepep v Umarji and Sons (Pty) Ltd ................................................................ 339 Padayachy v Chetty ............................................................................................... 373 Philoe v Zialor ........................................................................................................ 487 Portlouis v Ministry of Education & Ors .................................................................... 63 Q v Chief Officer of Civil Status .............................................................................. 433 R v Rose .................................................................................................................. 21 Ramkalawan v Parti Lepep & Rose ........................................................................ 323 Rhodes v Martinez ................................................................................................. 515 Tomking v Marie ..................................................................................................... 333 Ugnich v Lavrentieva & Legg ................................................................................. 141 Umarji and Sons (Pty) Ltd v Government of Seychelles ......................................... 123 Vielle v Albert ......................................................................................................... 547 Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd v Eastern European Engineering Ltd [stay] ................ 311 Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd v Eastern European Engineering Ltd [setting aside] .. 371 Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd v Eastern European Engineering Ltd [treaties] ........... 525 Woodcock v R ........................................................................................................ 301 vi KARUNAKARAN v CONSTITUTIONAL APPOINTMENTS AUTHORITY F MacGregor (PCA), S Domah, J Msoffe JJA 21 April 2017 SC 111/2016; SCA 33/2016 Constitution – suspension of judges – judicial review – ripeness doctrine – arguability – good faith – ex parte application The appellant was, due to complaints of misconduct, suspended from his office as a judge pending an inquiry by the Tribunal of Enquiry. The appellant sought a judicial review, arguing that he should be heard by the Constitutional Appointment Authority before the appointment of the Tribunal. The Supreme Court dismissed the application on the basis that it did not meet the requirements for judicial review and was premature. JUDGMENT Appeal dismissed. HELD 1 In a judicial review, a litigant challenging the decision of a public authority which affects him or her undergoes two stages: the leave stage and the merit stage. 2 To determine whether an application is premature, the court adopts the ripeness doctrine – a case is justiciable if the harm asserted has matured sufficiently to warrant judicial intervention. 3 An ex parte application does not mean that the matter is to be decided in the absence of the defendant. It means only that it is to be listed as an ex parte application; the applicant still needs to appear and satisfy the court that the order prayed for in the ex parte application may justifiably be given ex parte taking into account natural justice and the constitutional rights of those against whom the orders are sought. 4 Judges make a preliminary assessment of an ex parte application as follows: if prima facie reasons exist, they grant it forthwith; if the matter is wholly unarguable, they reject it; if it falls in between, they seek an inter partes hearing. 5 The petitioner should by way of material facts presented show the arguability of the case. Arguability is basically a question of fact based on materials and not on speculative persuasion at an inter partes hearing. At the time of filing, the petition with the accompanying documents should demonstrate that the issue raised is arguable. Legislation Constitution, arts 7, 48, 125, 134, 139 Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals, Adjudicating Bodies) Rules, rr 2-6 Cases Omaghomi Believe v Government of Seychelles & Or (2003) SLR 140 Cable & Wireless (Seychelles) Ltd v Minister of Finance and Communications & Ors (1998) SLR 132 Ex parte Fonseka SCA 28/2012 Javotte v Minister of Social Affairs (2005) SLR 24 Doris Louis v CAA CS 147/2007 269 (2017) SLR Foreign cases Agyei Twum v Attorney-General and Bright Akwetey [2005-2006] SCGLR 732 Cannock Chase District Council v Kelly [1978] 1 WLR Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155 Common Cause and Other v Union of India and Others, from the Supreme Court of India, No 505 of 2015 Derrick Chitala v Attorney-General (1995) ZR 91 Maria Carolina P Araullo, et al v Benigno Simeon