Accouche v Dine & Ors (CS 66 of 2022) [2024] SCSC 67 (17 May 2024)

CAROLUS J

1. This judgment arises from an action en recherche de paternité filed by the plaintiff who seeks a declaration of this Court that he is the son of the late Frederic Eddy Antat (“the deceased”) who died on 2^nd October 2021. The defendants to the action are the surviving siblings of the deceased. Originally only the 1^st defendant was made a defendant to the action but during the hearing of the matter, the plaintiff made a motion in MA221/2023 for the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th defendants to be added as parties which was granted by order dated 5^th July 2023. All four defendants have appeared in Court and admitted the plaintiff’s claim.

2. In his amended plaint, the plaintiff avers that the deceased was unmarried and survived by the defendants who are his only surviving siblings. He avers that he was born on 12^th February 1978 when his mother was living in concubinage with the deceased. His father did not acknowledge him and as a result his surname on his birth certificate is that of his mother although he was known and accepted in the deceased’s family, community and to the neighbours as the child of the deceased. He avers that the deceased, in his capacity as the plaintiff’s father, contributed towards the plaintiff’s livelihood, maintenance and education up to secondary school when the plaintiff left for the United Kingdom with his mother. He also avers that the defendants who are the deceased siblings have always known him as their brother’s child.

3. The Plaintiff  therefore prays this Court to –

1. Declare the Plaintiff as the son of the late  Frederic Eddy Antat;
2. Make an order directing the Chief Officer of the Civil Status to amend the birth certificate of the Plaintiff and register the deceased as his father by inserting the deceased’s name on his birth certificate.

4. The plaintiff testified at the hearing and except for the deceased and his mother living in concubinage at the time of his birth which he states he has no personal knowledge of, essentially confirmed the matters averred in the plaint. He produced the deceased’s death certificate confirming that he had died at Ile Perseverance on 2^nd October 2021 (Exhibit P1). The plaintiff also produced his own birth certificate in which the name Josianne Accouche is entered as his mother’s name and the father’s name was left blank (Exhibit P2). His date of birth is entered therein as 12^th February 1978.   He testified that his father’s name was not entered in his Birth Certificate because at the time of his birth his mother was only seventeen years old and his father much older. The defendants’ birth certificates were also produced to show that they were the siblings of the deceased.

5. Proof of the descent of a child and of parenthood is dealt with in the Civil Code of Seychelles Act. Article 373 of the Act provides as follows –

373.  Proof of parenthood, maternal and paternal, may be established by all relevant facts or by possession of status (possession d’état).

6. Article 376 further provides –

376.(1) The descent of children shall be proved by their acts (actes) of birth. 

(2). In the absence of an act of birth, the possession of status (possession d’état) of the child is sufficient.

7. Article 377 contains provisions setting out the circumstances in which possession of status (referred to in Articles 373 and 376 above) may be established. It reads as follows:

377. (1) Possession of status (possession d’état) may be established when there is a sufficient coincidence of facts indicating the relationship of descent and parenthood between a person and the family to which the person claims to belong.

(2)  The principal facts are— 

(a)  That that person has always borne the name of the parent whose child he or she claims to be;

(b)  That the parent has been treating him or her as his child and that, in his capacity as parent, he has provided for his or her education, maintenance and start in life;

(c)  That he or she has always been recognised in society as a child of that parent;

(d)  That he or she has been recognised as such by the family.

8. Article 381(1) provides for the right to bring an action to prove parental descent as follows:

381. (1) The right to prove parental descent is for the benefit for the child alone. 

9. I have considered the testimony of the plaintiff whom I find to be a credible witness. I have also taken into account that the defendants have admitted the plaint. On that basis, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff is, in accordance with Article 377, in possession of status of the natural child of the late Frederic Eddy Antat, as provided in Articles 373 and 376(2),

10. Accordingly I declare that the late Frederic Eddy Antat is the biological father of the plaintiff Dean Keddy Michael Accouche born on 12^th February 1978 and I make the following Orders –

1. The Chief Officer of Civil Status is directed to rectify the Act of Birth of Dean Keddy Michael Accouche by entering therein the name Frederic Eddy Antat as his father’s name.

2. A copy of this judgment is to be served on the Chief Officer of the Civil Status.

Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port Victoria on 17 May 2024

____________

Carolus J