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
CA 13 of 2017
Counsel for plantiff
E. Chetty

Jeanne v Lozaique (CA 13 of 2017) [2017] SCSC 487 (25 May 2017);

Media neutral citation
[2017] SCSC 487
Counsel for defendant
K. Domingue
Govinden, J


Civil Side: CA13/2017

 [2017] SCSC487    






Heard:                       26 May 2017

Counsel:                    Mr Elvis Chetty for appellant

                                 Miss Karen Domingue for respondent

Delivered:                   26 May 2017


R. Govinden, J

[1]        Miss Domingue for the Respondent applied for the court to dismiss this appeal on the basis that leave application to appeal in an interlocutory matter has been filed by the Appellant in Judgment in pursuant to Section 43(2) of the Court’s Act.

[2]        Mr Chetty applies for time for leave to be given to him for him to file his papers, motion applying for leave.

[3]        This Court is of the view that 43(2) of the Court’s Act is not applicable in this matter it applies to a Court either the Magistrates Court appeal to the Supreme Court or the Supreme Court appeal to the Court of Appeal.  We are now in a very special case we are now in a case involving a minor before the Family Tribunal in which his interest is at stake and a special procedure and law for that.

[4]        According to the Children’s Act any party present before the Family Tribunal who stands affected any order of the Family Tribunal can appeal pursuant to Section 78(B)  of the Children’s Act to this Court and the Appellant has so exercises her right.

[5]        I will accordingly rule that the requirement of leave is not applicable. This matter has been fixed for hearing, I am aware that it’s a case in which there’s a provisional order on file before the Family Tribunal. And every day, and every seconds that passes it doesn’t help any party in this case, even it doesn’t help this Court.  Especially given that there is no stay application before the Court in respect of that Family Tribunal Order.

Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 26 May 2017


R. Govinden, J

Judge of the Supreme Court