IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL

[Coram:     F. MacGregor (PCA) , M. Twomey (J.A)]

Civil Appeal SCA MA 13/2018 and SCA 16/2018

(arising in SCA 5 and 6 /2015)

IN THE MATTER OF Suzarra Jorre de St. Jorre, Hughes Albert, May Lavigne, Anna Marie Jore de St. Jorre, Manyive Chang Sing Chung and Narcisse Stevenson

AND IN THE MATTER OF a motion under section 147 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure

AND IN THE MATTER OF a motion for costs

Counsel:          Ms. Alexandra Benoiton for Narcisse Stevenson

                       Mr. Kieran Shah for Manyive Chang Sing Chung

Delivered:       11 May 2018

ORDER ON MOTION

M. Twomey (J.A)

1. There are two applications before this Court: first an application pursuant to section 147 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure and secondly an application for costs.
2. Section 147 of the Code permits corrections at any time if they arise from accidental slips.
3. In the judgment made on 7 December 2017, the following typographical slip was made in the orders of the court:

                        “Paragraph 38 (1) We order the Land Registrar to register Title V8949, V8951,                             V12298, V12299, V12300, V12301, and V12302 in the name of the Respondent,                             Narcisse Harry Antoine Stevenson.”

4. In the next order the Court orders the Registrar to register Title V8951 in the name of Manyive Chang Sing Chung.
5. Paragraph 38(1) therefore should not have included Parcel V8951 as one of the parcels to be transferred to the Respondent, Narcisse Harry Antoine Stevenson.
6. We are satisfied that such a slip was a typographical error and no prejudice is suffered by anyone if it were to be corrected. In the circumstances we make the following amendment: Paragraph 38[1] is amended to read:

                        “We order the Land Registrar to register Title V8949, V12298, V12299,                                          V12300, V12301, and V12302 in the name of the Respondent, Narcisse Harry                                Antoine Stevenson.”

7. The second application concerns the failure of the court to make an order for costs in favour of the Fifth Respondent. It is trite that when the court does not make an order for costs it is because it is not of the view that one should be made.
8. By contrast, in the present matter, the court neglected to make the order as it did not address its mind to the fact that an application for it had been made by the present Applicant (the Fifth Appellant in the appeal from which this application arises).
9. In the appeal the Court found that there was no cause of action ex facie the pleadings nor any averment made against the applicant. The Appellant, Mr. Stevenson had also conceded that he had no cause of action against the Fifth Appellant. Ms. Benoiton for the Appellant had undertaken to file submissions on this issue but did not do so.
10. Having duly considered this matter we are of the view that in the circumstances the Applicant should recover her costs both in this court and in the court below.
11. We therefore order that the Applicant, Manyive Chang Sing Chung be awarded her costs as prayed.