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
Court of Appeal
Case number
SCA 34 of 2010

Yvette Vidot v Johnna Ally (SCA 34 of 2010) [2012] SCCA 22 (31 August 2012);

Media neutral citation
[2012] SCCA 22
MacGregor, JA
Twomey, JA
Msoffe, JA




This is a case between two ladies who were friends before they fell out because  one was  having a relationship with the husband of the other, and as a result of the consequent animosity between them, one assaulted the other in a church at Anse Royale, where both were to attend  mass.


The issue here is one of quantum  of damages for the assault and whether provocation as a result of the adulterous relation of the Plaintiff now Appellant with the assaulter’s husband, was material in mitigating the damages.


The authorities tend to show as in David vs. Joubert (1984) SLR, that although provocation  is recognized  as a fact, it is not material to negate or minimize damages claimed.

            For the time being that case stands as persuasive authority on provocation, but it may be an area that merits review in future cases.


            Otherwise we consider the damages to be on the low side considering that assault happened in a church , in front of a lot of people  including the parish priest who knew the Appellant.  She has felt embarrassed and shy to go to that church again.


We note in the case of David (supra) that the assault caused considerable physical injury and was out of anger or provocation as claimed;  that the victim was having a relationship with the assaulter’s wife, and that he openly boasted about it saying he would do it as much as he liked.  That was in 1984, and the victim of the  assault was awarded only SR2,000 as moral damages.


Accordingly we hold the award  warrants an increase for the physical injury from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.5,000/-, and for moral damages an increase from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/-  making a total of Rs.10,000/- due in damages by the Respondent to Appellant.


We so hold and the appeal is allowed with costs.


                                                                                                F. MACGREGOR                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT




I concur:                                                                               ……………………………….


                                                                                                JUSTICE OF APPEAL



I concur:                                                                               ………………………………




Dated this 31st August 20120, Victoria, Seychelles