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
MA 222 of 2018
Counsel for plantiff

Seychelles Pension Fund v Poiret & Ors (MA 222 of 2018) [2018] SCSC 846 (19 September 2018);

Media neutral citation
[2018] SCSC 846
Counsel for defendant
S. Rouillon
Govinden, J


Civil Side no: MA222/2018

 (Arising in CS no. 15 of 2018)

 [2018] SCSC 846






Heard:             20 September 2018    

Counsel:          Mr ChangLeng for the Applicants

  Mr Rouillon for the Respondents                                                                            

Delivered:       20 September 2018    



R. Govinden, J


1.   This is an application filed by the Seychelles Pension Fund and Marie-Ange Waye-Hive against several other defendants.  It is filed under section 106 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure.  I have heard learned counsels for both sides. 

2.   I have scrutinized the notice of motion and affidavit. 

3.   Having done so and having read Srction 106 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure I find that the application is incompetent.  Section 106 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

“If more than one suit has been entered by the same plaintiff against the same defendant or if more than one suit has been entered by different plaintiffs against the same defendant in respect of the same plaint arising out of the same transaction or series of transaction etc”.

4.   These two suits that have been averred in the affidavit in support of the application having indeed been entered by the same plaintiffs but the defendants are dissimilar and different.  This runs contrary to the provisions of section 106 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure.  I am of the view that in a matter for consolidation the suits in all the cases to be consolidated must be in respect of the same defendants and this is not the case in this particular matter.  It cannot be consolidated.   Though the claim is the same the defendants are different. 

5.   So I will struck out this application with costs in favour of the other side.


Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 20 September 2018.

R. Govinden​​​​​​​