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
Civil Side 146 of 2007
Counsel for plantiff
Mr. C. Lucas

Benoit v Interior and Construction Design (Pty) Ltd and Another (Civil Side 146 of 2007) [2008] SCSC 61 (06 February 2008);

Media neutral citation
[2008] SCSC 61
Counsel for defendant
Mr. Derjacqes
Gaswaga, J




MICHEL BENOIT                                                                                                         Plaintiff


INTERIOR & CONSTRUCTION                                               1st Defendant



SARAH SABADIN                                                                        2nd Defendant


Civil Side No. 146 of 2007



Mr. C. Lucas for the Plaintiff

Mr. Derjacques for the Defendant




Gaswaga, J


1. This court has considered the motion by the Applicants/Defendants herein to vary, amend, rescind or void the exparte order of 29th August, 2007.  I have also heard the arguments by both counsel on the matter.  It is to be noted, as clearly deponed in the supporting affidavit, that at the Mauritius Commercial Bank (Seychelles) Ltd the Applicant/Defendant was operating an overdraft facility amounting to SR. 205, 330.85, which facility has now been stopped due to the court order thereby causing prejudice to the operations of the company as well as the financial transactions of the second Applicant/Defendant

2. Further, the said order has never been satisfied as there are no funds at all on the account seized.  A Court of law cannot act in vain.  I am therefore in agreement with Mr. Derjacques that the continued existence of the said order only stifles the Applicants’/Defendants’ business transactions and caused unnecessary or considerable hardship which is against the spirit of the law given that no money can be seized to satisfy the Court order.

3. For the above reasons, it is only fair and prudent that the motion is granted and that order vacated.

4. This order is to be served on the Mauritius Commercial Bank (Seychelles) Ltd and Mr. C. Lucas counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent.

5. I so order.





Dated this 6th February, 2008.