Court of Appeal

ORDER

The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the orders of the Supreme Court are upheld. Costs are awarded in favour of the Respondent.

ORDER

1. We make an order dismissing the appeal as a whole as having abated or as being defective.

2. The order of the trial Judge dismissing the plaint is upheld.

3. We make no order as to costs

ORDER

1. The appeal is allowed for the reason that the plaint does not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

2. We make orders striking out the plaint and setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court

3. Consequently, the following orders of the learned Judge are quashed —

"(1) [t]he Registrar of Lands shall cancel the registration of the Defendant's Affidavit of Transmission by death and remove the joint names of the Defendants as coproprietors of Title V9598 on the Land Register.

(2) [t]he Land Registrar shall enter the names of the 2nd and 3rd Plaintiffs as coproprietors of Title V9598 of the Land Register.

(3) [t]he first and second Defendants shall jointly pay the second and third Plaintiffs the sum of SCR50,000 at the legal rate.

(4) [c]osts of this suit are awarded to the Plaintiffs."

4. We make no order as to costs. 5. A certified copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal to be served on the Registrar of Lands.

ORDER

1. I quash the award made for loss of opportunity of development or sale as a result of the encroachment.

2. I quash the award in the sum of SCR 300,000 for loss of use and enjoyment of property and substitute therefor an award in the sum of SCR 100,000.

3. The appeal is otherwise set aside with costs.

ORDER

I set aside the appeal and maintain the judgment of the Supreme Court in SCSC 510 CS 115/2019

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Supreme Court is quashed. Harikrishna Builders is to pay the following sums as damages to Ms. Etheve:

i. Euro 200,000 (at the rate on the date of this judgment)

ii.SCR 3,574,378.69 (SCR 215, 280.69 + SCR 3,200,000 + SCR9,098.00 + SCR 150,000)

iii. interest from the date of this judgment

iv. costs of both courts.

ORDER

Appeal allowed. Judgment of the Trial Court is quashed and order made for the return of the funds seized from the Appellant. No order as to interest and costs.

ORDER

1. Conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to traffic contrary to Section 9 (1) and 19 (1) (d) (i) quashed and substituted with conviction for possession of a controlled drug under Section 8(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act.

2. Appellant sentenced to a fine Appellant is sentenced to a fine of 30,000 SCR for possession of cannabis, a controlled drug. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of this sentence, in default of the payment of the fine, the Appellant shall serve a sentence of 1 years’ imprisonment.

3. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court on conviction of cultivation of a controlled drug is upheld.

ORDER

The appeal is set aside with costs.

ORDERS

The appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Consequently, the judgment and orders of the Trial Judge are upheld

ORDER

1. I quash the decision of the trial Court setting aside the Order of Adeline Master in the case of Patricia Sheila Mathiot, born Mellon, with case reference No. XP104/2020, dated 5 October 2020, appointing the Appellant as executrix.

2. I make an order reinstating the Appellant as executrix of the estate of the late Mr. Mellon.

3. I make no order as to cost.

ORDER

The obligation entrenched in Article 38 of the Constitution extends to the State taking executive, legislative and administrative measures in ensuring that private citizens do not pollute the environment. The State is under an obligation to take steps to clean up pollution caused to public places such as rivers and beaches. The State may in certain instances be liable to its citizens in damages where it fails to do so. The Supreme Court is directed to determine the claim of the Respondents in accordance with the answers given by this Court and upon a consideration of the evidence that may be led before it by the parties.

ORDER

The appeal is set aside and the rulings in MA 292/2022 and CA 6/2022 as well as the order of the Employment Tribunal in case ET 183.18 and 185.18 dated 21 January 2022 are maintained.

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed with costs and we refuse to set aside the Order of the Employment Tribunal dated 21 January 2022

ORDER

1. As I have concluded that the ruling dated 10 November 2020 and judgment dated 21 October 2022 are not valid, I make an order declaring the said ruling and judgment null.

2. Consequently, I quash the ruling dated 10 November 2020 and judgment dated 21 October 2022.

3. I remit the matter to the trial Court to be dealt with in the light of my opinion under rule 31 (5) of The Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules, 2005, as amended, which stipulates — "31(5) In its judgment, the Court may confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the trial court with or without an order as to costs, or may order a re-trial or may remit the matter with the opinion of the Court thereon to the trial court, or may make such other order in the matter as to it may seem just, and may by such order exercise any power which the trial court might have exercised : […]."

ORDER

The jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles extends to issuing a restriction notice, during the course of investigations, to include property within the control of the person who is under investigation although in fact it may be the property of third parties who are not under investigation and have not received such notice. Appeal allowed with costs.

ORDER

Ruling given in a Recusal Application is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Courts Act. A leave to appeal application is the proper remedy against such order. Special Leave to Appeal granted.

Appeal dismissed. The sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment maintained.

ORDER

Leave to amend motion for special leave dated 3 July 2023 as well as the affidavit and exhibits marked MV1 to MV 8 in support thereof and to substitute the motion by a “Motion for leave to appeal out of time is refused. Special leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling delivered by the Supreme Court on 9 June 2023 is refused.