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 29 of 2016
Counsel for plantiff
Mr. Elizabeth

Vel v Albert & Anor (CS 29 of 2016) [2016] SCSC 282 (21 April 2016);

Media neutral citation
[2016] SCSC 282
Counsel for defendant
Mrs. Amesbury
Dodin, J


Civil Side:  29/2016

[2016] SCSC 282








Counsel:  Mr. Elizabeth for the applicant

                Mrs. Amesbury for


Delivered:                  21 April 2016



Dodin J


  1. The Applicant, Sally Martine Vel, applied to the Court for an interlocutory prohibitory injunction to be issued against the Respondents Lucille Albert and Rennick Mathiot, prohibiting the Respondents from playing loud music causing incessant nuisance to the Applicant and her 17 year old son who is currently taking his “O” Level examination pending the determination of the main suit by the Supreme Court.
  2. The Respondents object to the application maintaining that they do not play any loud music and that such prohibitory injunction would infringe their right to enjoy their property including listening to music of their choice.
  3. The Respondents maintain that this application is malicious, vexatious and an abuse of the Court’s process for political reasons as the parties are of different political persuasions and the Applicant is using the Court to stop the Respondents from playing opposition political songs and in any event such injunction will be difficult to implement.
  4. I have carefully studied the application and heard learned counsel for the Applicant and Respondents.
  5. In order to allow the course of justice to prevail and prevent the fruits of justice from being defeated, the Court is empowered to grant interim injunction which may remain operative until the further orders of the Court or the final determination of the matters in issue. The judicial precedents have set up some basic conditions to be satisfied for the grant of the interim relief of injunction.
  6. These are (1) that a prima facie case must have been established, (2) that irreparable damage would be caused to the Petitioner or his interest and (3) that or the balance of convenience  an interlocutory injunction would best serve the interest of justice. The Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried if the test of ‘prima facie’ case is satisfied.
  7. The Petitioner must satisfy the Court that the injunction is highly necessary without which the right of the party concerned cannot be protected and such loss or damage is also not compensable.
  8. In satisfying these conditions the Petitioner must also satisfy the Court that the balance of convenience is in his favour. This preventive relief is not granted as a matter of right but at the discretion of the Court only if the above conditions are satisfied.
  9. In this case I am satisfied that there is a real issue of nuisance to be tried and that if interim relief is not granted, the damage to be suffered by the Applicant or her son would be irreparable.
  10. I also find that on balance of convenience and in the interest of justice an interim injunction is necessary to keep the peace until the main matter is tried by the Supreme Court.
  11. I therefore hereby make the following orders:
  12. I grant an interim injunction as prayed by the Applicant ordering the Respondents:
  1. Not to play loud amplified music of any kind pending the determination of the main case by the Supreme Court.
  2. To maintain peace and quiet in the neighbourhood pending the determination of the main case by the Supreme Court.

    13. Cost to follow the event.



Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 21 April 2016

G Dodin
Judge of the Supreme Court