Welcome to the new SeyLII website. Enjoy an improved search engine and new collections. If you are used to accessing SeyLII via Google, note Google will take some time to re-index the site.

We are still busy migrating some of the old content. If you need anything in particular from the old website, it will be available for a while longer at https://old.seylii.org/

Court name
Supreme Court
Case number
CS 9 of 2013
Counsel for plantiff
B. Georges

Lecoq v Mahe Charters (CS 9 of 2013) [2017] SCSC 265 (22 March 2017);

Media neutral citation
[2017] SCSC 265
Counsel for defendant
C. Lucas
Mckee, J





McKee J

[1]        This is a civil matter and accordingly the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities rather than on the more onerous criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

[2]        I have considered all the evidence including the documentary exhibits. I find that Jean Claude Lecoq, Rodney Payet and Mra Adele Kinit have been economical with the truth, are witnesses lacking in credibility and their evidence is unreliable.

[3]        I find the true position to be as follows. The Plaintiff, a non-Seychellois, purchased a boat and decided that he would use it in Seychelles to carry on the business of boat charter. I find that he was fully aware that a non-Seychellois person could not be the proprietor of a business in Seychelles without a licence. There was a strong possibility that he would not be granted a licence or it would simply be refused. I find that he set up a scheme with Rodney Payet and Mrs Adele Kinit to avoid this legal requirement and documents were prepared and signed in support. I find that the Plaintiff was the instigator in this matter but Mr Payet and Mrs Kinit were willing participants. All three persons were fully involved. A Seychelles company was formed, Mahe Charters Limited, with Payet and Kinit as directors of the company. A short agreement was then signed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant which purportedly was an agreement relating to the business of boat charter with financial terms stated therein. I find that this agreement, on which this claim is based, is tainted with illegality; it was an inherent part of what has been called the “scam” which allowed the Plaintiff, a non-Seychellois, to be granted a licence to carry on a business in Seychelles.

[4]        I find that this agreement is illegal and hence void. It follows that the Plaintiff cannot seek to recover payments under the illegal contract. It is unenforceable.

[5]        Accordingly, the Plaint is dismissed.

[6]        Each party will meet their own costs.



Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 23 March 2017


C. McKee

Judge of the Supreme Court