Civil Procedure http://seylii.org/ en Muller v Benoiton Constructin (SCA 78 of 2022) [2022] SCCA 79 (16 December 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/court-appeal/2022/79 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Muller v Benoiton Constructin (SCA 78 of 2022) [2022] SCCA 79 (16 December 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Mithila Mudalige</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Thu, 01/05/2023 - 06:48</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p>Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court – Sections 69 and 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure (Cap 213) – Setting aside of an ex-parte judgment</p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p class="text-align-justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Court makes the following Orders:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="text-align-justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:139.5pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appeal is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="text-align-justify"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">No order is made as to costs</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scca/2022/79/2022-scca-79.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1098840">2022-scca-79.pdf</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-rtf file--general"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scca/2022/79/2022-scca-79.rtf" type="application/rtf; length=134683">2022-scca-79.rtf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="center" style="text-align:center; text-indent:4.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">___________________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Reportable</span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">[2022] Civil Appeal SCA 43/2020 SCCA 78 (16 December 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Appeal from MA 59/2020 out of CC4/2017) [2020] SCSC 647 </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the matter between</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ARNOUD MULLER                                                          Appellant </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">         <b>            </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. S. Rajasundaram)</span></span></i>          </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">                                                            </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">BENOITON CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD                  Respondent </span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. Basil Hoareau)</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0in"> </p> </div> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Neutral Citation:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"> <i>Muller v Benoiton Constructin (Pty) Ltd </i>(Civil Appeal SCA 43/2020) [2022] SCCA 78 (16 December 2022) (Appeal from MA 59/2020 out of CC4/2017 [2020] SCSC 647)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Before: </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                  Andre, Twomey-Woods, Robinson JJA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Summary:             </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court – Sections 69 and 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure (Cap 213) – Setting aside of an ex-parte judgment </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Heard:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                   1 December 2022 </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Delivered:              </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">16 December 2022 </span></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                            ORDER</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">S</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">                                                </span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Court makes the following Orders:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:200px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:139.5pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appeal is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:200px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:139.5pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">No order is made as to costs.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                            <b>JUDGMENT</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ANDRE, JA</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">INTRODUCTION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">This is an appeal arising out of the notice of appeal filed on 21 October 2020 by Arnoud Muller (Appellant) against Benoiton Construction (Pty) Ltd (Respondent), being dissatisfied with the decision of Judge M. Vidot given at the Supreme Court on 10 September 2020 in Civil Side No. MA 59 of 2020 dismissing the Appellant’s application (MA 59/2020) to set aside the ex-parte judgement delivered in civil suit 04/2017. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant has three grounds of appeal set out in paragraph 2 of the notice of appeal to be considered in detail below. The Appellant further seeks the reliefs set out in paragraph 3 of its notice of appeal namely, the setting aside and reversal of the impugned judgment; and that the Appellant be given a fair chance and opportunity of right of hearing on the merits<i>.</i></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>BACKGROUND </b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">On 14 March 2017, a Plaint was filed by the Respondent against the Appellant (CC 04/2017). The matter was initially fixed for a hearing on 11<sup></sup>October 2018 and at that instance, Counsel for the Appellant (Defendant in the court below) Mr  S. Rajasundaram asked for an adjournment citing that his client was unable to attend owing to a heart attack he had suffered. A medical report was produced to support this averment and the trial Court granted the adjournment as sought.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">A hearing was set to ensue 8 months later on 10 June 2019 and 15 June 2019. Although the Appellant was not physically present at the time, his attorney Mr S. Rajasundaram was present. At that instance, counsel once again requested an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the Appellant was unable to travel to Seychelles owing to health issues. At that juncture, the trial Court refused to grant the sought adjournment in the absence of supporting documents, and with this, the counsel withdrew his appearance from the case. The matter proceeded ex-parte on 10 June 2019 and a judgment was delivered on 17 February 2020 (<i>Benoiton Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Muller</i> CC04 of 2014 SCSC 131 (17 February 2020)).</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant on 30 March 2020 filed a motion to set aside the ex parte judgment dated 17 February 2020 and that the case be heard <i>inter-partes</i> on the merits. The application was made in terms of section 69 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure and was supported by an affidavit sworn by attorney-at-law Mr. S Rajasundaram. The Respondent filed an affidavit in reply resisting the application.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the application, counsel for the Appellant set out the reasons for the non-appearance of the Appellant on the date the case was set for hearing. He stated that the Appellant (applicant in the lower court) was a foreigner and at all material times an aged person with ailing health problems. The Respondent resisted the application on the premise that despite claiming that the applicant had a medical predicament, no medical report nor affidavit was produced to court to support claims that the applicant was indeed medically unfit to travel to Seychelles to attend court. The Respondent also advanced the argument that counsel for the Appellant could have represented his client and cross-examined witnesses. Upon cogitating on arguments presented by both parties, the application was dismissed by learned Judge Vidot.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is against this background that this appeal arises. </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>GROUNDS OF APPEAL </b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="8"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant sets out three grounds of appeal which in the verbatim state as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">“<i>Ground No. 1: The learned Judge erred in his findings and failed to appreciate the Appellant was set ex-parte and the decision was made in the absence of the Appellant without having given any opportunity to him on his right to a fair hearing.</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Ground No. 2: The learned Judge failed to issue Notice to the Appellant when the matter was set ex-parte, the ex-parte hearing took place 10<sup>th</sup> June 2019 &amp; 15.10.2019 without having served any notice to the Appellant and the judgment was given 17<sup>th</sup> February 2020. (notice ought to have been served on the Appellant).</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Ground No. 3: The learned Judge failed to appreciate the reason for the absence of the appellant (a foreign national) namely ill-ness and hospitalization and was also out of the Republic of Seychelles at all material times of the hearing of the matter.</span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant seeks three reliefs. First, it is prayed that the Ruling in the lower court be set aside, consequently setting aside the ex-parte Judgment of 17 February 2022 and simultaneously remitting the matter back to Supreme Court to re-hear the matter <i>inter-partes.</i> Secondly, it is prayed that this Court makes an order it finds just in the case. Thirdly and finally, it is prayed that costs be awarded for the Appellant at both the trial and appellate court.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Appellant’s Submission</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="10"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">By way of submissions of 4 November 2022, the appellant in a gist submits as follows.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant seeks to consolidate all three grounds of appeal on the basis that all the grounds revolve around one core issue of setting aside the ex-parte judgment given against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is submitted that the main grievance of the appellant, a foreign national and an aged person, is that the court below has not given him a chance to produce a medical certificate especially when the appellant’s attorney had made an undertaking to produce the medical certificate on the second hearing date, namely 15 June 2019.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">That the court below justified refusing the motion for the appellant to adjourn the hearing on the basis that it was the second time the appellant moved for adjournment. With an unsuccessful motion for adjournment, counsel for the appellant could not proceed with the hearing in the absence of his client as he wanted his client to be present while the hearing took place. It is argued that under these compelling circumstances, the appellant’s attorney had to withdraw his appearance for the appellant. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is further submitted that the court below grossly failed to issue a notice to the appellant before proceeding with the hearing. Therefore in proceeding to hear the case <i>ex-parte</i> without resorting to the procedure of issuing notice to the appellant, it violated the <i>audi alteram partem</i> rule. Reference is made to the cases of <i>Republic v Ladouceur and Ladouceur v Republic [2009] SLR 131, Registrar of the Supreme Court v Public Service Appeals Board and Others (SCA CL 06/2020) [2021] SCCA 13, </i>to illustrate the essence of the right to a fair hearing.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is further submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the necessity of the presence of the appellant. While the court below felt that the appellant’s attorney could have proceeded only up to the level of cross-examining, it is submitted that the court failed to appreciate that the appellant’s attorney would have only been prompted to move for an adjournment in the absence of the appellant even if the hearing proceeded.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The appellant submits further, citing section 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure in support of the argument. That because the appellant was unaware of his attorney’s withdrawal, he should not be penalized with the hearing proceeding without notice to him given the exorbitant sum claimed in the plaint and the subsequent ex-parte judgment for USD 127,664.14.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant further cites section 69 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, section 69 contemplates various scenarios under which the court can set aside its judgment. One of those scenarios is namely, <i>“….or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall set aside the judgment…..”</i>. It is submitted that the appellant did not risk until the filing of the execution application to enforce the judgment given <i>ex-parte</i> against him, rather chose to rush to court well before the filing of the execution application against him.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">With regards to the appellant’s attorney choosing to swear an affidavit in support of the appellant’s notice of motion, it is submitted that it was purely to maintain the professional obligation and to maintain ethical standards towards his client. It is submitted additionally, that the law is not strict in prohibiting or barring the attorneys from swearing affidavits in support of the notice of motion. With this, it is submitted that the court below wrongly declined the notice of motion based on a defective affidavit.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>Respondent’s Submissions </b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="19"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">By way of submissions of 24 November 2022, the respondent in a gist submits as follows.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">With respect to the first ground of appeal, the respondent submits that the ground of appeal is erroneous in that the appellant was granted the opportunity to be heard and his right to a fair hearing was observed at all times by the trial court. This Court has been referred to the proceedings of the court below of 11 October 2018 and 10 June 2019, which were annexed to the affidavit of the respondent sworn in reply to the application to set aside the judgment delivered by the court in the main case.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is submitted that upon the court refusing the viva voce application to adjourn the hearing of 10 June 2019, counsel for the appellant decided to withdraw from the matter. That it was not the court who requested counsel to withdraw his appearance for the appellant, but rather counsel took it upon himself to withdraw his appearance, on the basis that he had no further instructions. That the right to a fair hearing of the appellant was at all times respected and it was the appellant’s counsel who decided to withdraw his appearance. If at all, the appellant should take issue with the decision of his counsel to withdraw his appearance.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">With reference to the right to a fair hearing as per article 19 (7) of the Constitution, this court is referred to section 70 of the SCCP which provides that, </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“A party to a cause or matter may, except when otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, <b><u>appear in person or by an attorney or barrister at law.</u></b> A party, not resident within Seychelles may appoint some other person by power of attorney to appear on his behalf: Provided that the court may for sufficient reasons allow any other person to appear on behalf of any party”.</span></i> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Emphasis is mine)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="23"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is thus submitted that the appellant in the exercise of his right to a fair hearing under article 19 (7) of the Constitution and section 70 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure, elected to be represented by an attorney-at-law counsel Mr. S Rajasundaram. Since the appellant’s counsel decided to withdraw his appearance on the day of the trial, any possible breach of the appellant’s right would have been caused by the attorney-at-law and therefore, the appellant should claim any remedy against his counsel.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In answer to the second ground of appeal, the respondent adopts the response for the first ground of appeal. It is further submitted that this ground of appeal is also erroneous in that the appellant is seeking to challenge the decision of the learned trial judge on 10 June 2019, through the backdoor. That this ground is misconceived as the appellant is out of time to seek to challenge the decision of the court on the above-stated date. On that basis, the court ought to dismiss this ground of appeal. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In respect of the third ground of appeal that the arguments advanced for the first ground of appeal are adopted. It is submitted that appellant is once again seeking to appeal against the decision of the learned trial judge through the backdoor. That in any event, there was no evidence adduced before the trial court on 10 June 2019 in support of the application, to establish that the appellant was indeed sick and hospitalized on 10 June 2019. In particular, there was no medical certificate produced before the court to confirm that the appellant was indeed sick and hospitalized. Furthermore, it was submitted that there was no notice of motion supported by an affidavit filed before the court.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is further submitted that the application, which was filed eight months after the hearing on 10 June 2019, was not supported by any affidavit from the appellant to confirm that he was indeed sick and hospitalized in on the day of the hearing of the main case. Moreover, there was no medical certificate exhibited in the affidavit of the attorney-at-law Mr. S Rajasundaram to establish that the appellant was indeed sick and hospitalized on 10 June 2019.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Respondent further submitted that there were certain aspects of the impugned judgment which was unchallenged namely in paragraph [9] and [13] of the judgment where the trial judge stated that – </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“[9] [H]owever, in order to invoke section 69 the party against whole judgment is given must not have appeared in court on the date fixed in the summons. We are here dealing with a different situation; the Applicant did not fail to appear on the date fixed in the summons. He failed to appear only after the case had been fixed for hearing and that was not the first hearing date. There were previous hearing dates that were aborted and reason for such adjournment had been the ill health of the Applicant which was supported with medical report. In Biancardi v Electronic Alarm [1975] SLR 31, a case being relied upon by Counsel for the Respondent also, the following was observed</span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“The final question is whether the defendant is entitled to invoke section 69. Reading section 69, it is clear that to satisfy its provision one of the essential requirements is that the party invoking the same must not have appeared on the date fixed in the summons for appearance before court. In other words, section 69 applies only in the case where the party, against whom the judgment has been given ex-parte, has not appeared on the date fixed in the summons for appearance under section 63. Section 6 deals with the requirement that on the date fixed in the summons for the Defendant to appear and answer the claim that the parties are in attendance at the court in person or by the representative attorney or agent. As pointed out by Counsel for the Respondent one has to also look at section 65 SCCP. Section 65 provides for procedure when the defendant does not appear on the date fixed in the summons. In such case, after due proof of service of the summons, the court may proceed to hear the suit and give judgment or may adjourn the case for hearing of the suit ex-parte”.</span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“[13][T]he Respondent final bone of contention is that the affidavit in support of the Application sworn by Mr Rajasundaram, Counsel for the Applicant is defective. First, I note that it appears that Counsel is swearing an affidavit on behalf of his client, the Applicant, yet does not state that he is authorised to swear such affidavit. However, the fact that he is Counsel representing the Applicant and swears an affidavit for him that makes the affidavit defective. This is because Counsel cannot place himself in the position of a witness to the case and for that matter swears an affidavit. If Counsel has chosen to swear the affidavit he cannot himself represent the Applicant. I hold that in such circumstances, the Applicant should have sought the assistance of another counsel to argue the application”</span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol start="28"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It was submitted that there are no grounds of appeal raised in respect of the two above-mentioned findings and hence, in essence, even if the appeal was to succeed on the grounds raised by the appellant, the judgment should be upheld based on the stated findings of the court, which have not been challenged.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Respondent moves for the dismissal of the appeal with costs. </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="30"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Court takes note of the Appellant’s heads of argument in which Counsel states that he seeks to consolidate the grounds into one. Having read the grounds, I am of the view that Ground 1 and 3 may be dealt with together, while Ground 2 is sufficient to stand on its own. As such, I proceed to deal first with Grounds 1 and 3 and then followed by Ground 2.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>GROUNDS 1 AND 3</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="31"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The essence of ground 1 is that the absence of the Appellant was justified. In those circumstances, the Court proceeding to hear the matter in the absence of the Appellant impinges on his right to a fair hearing. It was submitted that the Appellant could not be physically present because he was and remains in his home country, Netherlands, due to physical ailments. Notwithstanding physical absence for one reason or another, I find that a defendant in a matter may be considered present through representation of counsel. In the present case, the Appellant being domiciled in Netherlands, was duly represented by his counsel Mr. Rajasundaram up to the point where counsel formally withdrew. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">At the juncture of the withdrawal by Counsel, it can be said the Appellant (defendant in trial court) was absent and thus failed to appear for the hearing. Counsel submits that in failing to give the Appellant notice following withdrawal of Counsel, the Appellant was denied the opportunity to be heard. Counsel has placed emphasis on the cases of Re: <i>Republic v Ladouceur</i> and <i>Ladouceur v Republic</i> [2009] SLR 13, as well as <i>Registrar of the Supreme Court v Public Service Appeals Board and Ors (SCA CL 6 of 2020) [2021] SCCA 11 (30 April 2021)</i> where both courts pronounced on the importance of courts to hear parties to a suit. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is the further submission of Counsel, that the Appellant has recourse under section 69 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure. I shall explore this provision below.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Respondent through its counsel Mr B. Hoareau argued in skeleton heads of arguments filed 24 November 2022. Therein, arguments for the first ground are also adopted for the third ground.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is the contention of the Respondent that the Appellant was in fact granted the opportunity to be heard and his right to a fair trial was observed at all times by the Court. To support this, the Appellant draws in on the events that preceded the ex-parte hearing from which the impugned judgment was delivered. A hearing was set for the 10<sup>th</sup> of June 2019 following a previous adjournment of an 11<sup>th</sup> October 2018 adjournment. It is the submission of the Respondent that because a viva voce application to adjourn the 10<sup>th</sup> June 2019 hearing failed, counsel for the Appellant withdrew from the matter. It is also submitted that Counsel withdrew on the basis that he had no further instructions. In respect of the right to a fair hearing, it is the submission of the Respondent that the Appellant exercised the same through representation by Counsel. Therefore, where counsel withdrew his appearance, the Appellant must take issue and claim any remedy against said Counsel rather than the Court as he does so now.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Respondent adopts similar arguments for ground 3, and also argues that the Appellant did not produce a medical certificate to support his averments that he was hospitalized on the day of the hearing. Finally, the Respondent argues that the aspects of the impugned judgment that are not challenged in this appeal, namely paragraphs [9] and [13], and therefore the judgment should be upheld on the basis on the findings made in these paragraphs.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The learned Judge took cognisance of the Appellant’s arguments in the lower court in respect of those arguments advanced for section 69 of the SCCP which reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.5in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“69. Setting aside judgment given ex parte </span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">If in any case where one party does not appear on the day fixed in the summons, judgment has been given by the court, the party against whom judgment has been given may apply to the court to set it aside by motion made within one month after the date of the judgment if the case has been dismissed, or within one month after execution has been effected if judgment has been given against the defendant, and if he satisfies the court that <b>the summons was not duly served</b> or <b>that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing</b>, the court <b>shall set aside the judgment </b>upon such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise <b>as it thinks fit</b> and shall order the suit to be restored to the list of cases for hearing. Notice of such motion shall be given to the other side.”</span></i> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Emphasis is mine)    </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="38"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The trial judge rejected that the Appellant may rely on section 69 of thereof the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure. He states, at paras [9] and [10], as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“[9]     However, in order to invoke section 69 the party against whom judgement is given must not have appeared in court on the date fixed in the summons. We are here dealing with a different situation; the Applicant did not fail to appear on the date fixed in the summons. He failed to appear only after the case had been fixed for hearing and that was not the first hearing date. There were previous hearing dates that were aborted and reason for such adjournment had been ill health of the Applicant which was supported with medical report. …</span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">[10]      ….section 69 has no application to the Applicant’s situation as he did appear on the on the day fixed in the summons.”</span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol start="39"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-top:16px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:14px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In refusing the applicability of section 69 to the present case, the learned judge was of the view that the section applied only in those instances where the defendant failed to appear on the date fixed in the summons. It was his view that the Appellant could not rely on section 69 mainly because he had in fact appeared on the date fixed for summons.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">On a closer reading of section 69, it is clear that the Court ought to be satisfied of one of two things to move on an application made under section 69. Either the defendant was not duly served the summons or was prevented from appearing when the matter was called for a hearing. However, before progressing to this, indeed a party who seeks relief under section 69 must have also failed to appear on the date fixed for summons. In essence, a party must have (i) failed to appear on the date fixed for summons; and (ii) satisfy the court that he or she was not duly served <i><u>or</u></i> was prevented by good reasons from appearing at the hearing. While it is clear that the Appellant relies on the fact that he was prevented from appearing for the hearing, he fails to satisfy the first part of the test which requires him to show that he did not appear on the date fixed for summons. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the circumstances, the Appellant cannot rely on section 69 of the SCCP. What is therefore apparent is that the law as it stands does not cater for instances where a party has appeared for the date fixed for summons, but fails to then appear on the date fixed for the hearing with good cause. In that instance, the Court may be moved by a party to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under section 6 of the Courts Act, which ensues when there is no legal remedy available. Equity would have been especially relevant in this case owing to the fact that the party does have a right to be heard as canvassed by the Appellant supra.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I take note that in the supporting affidavit of the application under section 69 of the SCCP, Mr Rajasundaram on behalf of the Appellant, attempted to move the Court to exercise rules of natural justice, employ equity and show understanding that the Appellant was suffering from ailments. While the arguments do have some merit, the trial Court was correct in rejecting the affidavit in support by virtue of the same being sworn by Counsel on behalf of the Appellant (paragraph [13] of the Ruling refers).</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the circumstances, Ground 1 has no merits. In view of this, Ground 3 pertaining to the weight of the reasons advanced for absence would also fall away and need not be discussed lengthily. In any regard, I note that while the Appellant submitted that he was suffering from ailments, it was also necessary that he produces the necessary documentary evidence of a medical report. In the absence of such, I do not see how the trial court or this Court should be moved in his favour.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">GROUND 2</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="44"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Counsel for the Appellant argues that following his own withdrawal and that the Appellant was also not physically present, the matter ought not to have proceeded without notice to the latter. It is argued by Counsel that section 183 mandates that notice be given to the defendant by the Registrar. With this, Counsel submits that the trial Court failed to apply section 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Counsel for the Respondent argues that ground 2 is erroneous in that the Appellant is seeking to challenge the decision the trial Court taken on 10 June 2019 through the backdoor. It is the contention of the Respondent that this Ground of appeal is misconceived because the Appellant is out of time to challenge the impugned decision.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Suffice it to say, I am not persuaded that section 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure finds application in this instance. I note that the trial judge took cognisance of the fact that section 183 applies in instances where a plaintiff discontinues a suit in terms of section 182 and the Registrar is called to issue notice to the defendant. I agree with the learned judge in this regard and find that the use of section 183 has no relevance in the present case. As such, Ground 2 has no merits.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">DECISION </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="47"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having found no merit to each of the grounds of appeal as raised by the Appellant, the appeal is dismissed and the reliefs sought cannot be granted. The judgment of the lower court is thus upheld in its entirety.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>ORDER</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="48"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As a result, this Court orders as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(i)        The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the lower court is thus upheld in its entirety; and </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:.5in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(ii)       No order is made as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Signed, dated, and delivered at Ile du Port on 16 December 2022. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">_______________</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">S. Andre, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I concur                                                                                   _______________      </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                                                                Dr. Twomey-Woods</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I concur                                                                                   _______________</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                                                                Robinson, JA</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-5d8f4e5273b81f36a7b7dad67e196ad8b8b4af5b145a9f544ac4e6759026cbf9"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="center" style="text-align:center; text-indent:4.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">___________________________________________________________________________</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><u><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Reportable</span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">[2022] Civil Appeal SCA 43/2020 SCCA 78 (16 December 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Appeal from MA 59/2020 out of CC4/2017) [2020] SCSC 647 </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the matter between</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ARNOUD MULLER                                                          Appellant </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">         <b>            </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. S. Rajasundaram)</span></span></i>          </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">                                                            </span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">BENOITON CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD                  Respondent </span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. Basil Hoareau)</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0in"> </p> </div> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Neutral Citation:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"> <i>Muller v Benoiton Constructin (Pty) Ltd </i>(Civil Appeal SCA 43/2020) [2022] SCCA 78 (16 December 2022) (Appeal from MA 59/2020 out of CC4/2017 [2020] SCSC 647)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Before: </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                  Andre, Twomey-Woods, Robinson JJA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Summary:             </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court – Sections 69 and 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure (Cap 213) – Setting aside of an ex-parte judgment </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Heard:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                   1 December 2022 </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Delivered:              </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">16 December 2022 </span></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                            ORDER</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">S</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">                                                </span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Court makes the following Orders:</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:200px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:139.5pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appeal is dismissed.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:200px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:139.5pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">No order is made as to costs.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; text-align:justify; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                            <b>JUDGMENT</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ANDRE, JA</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">INTRODUCTION</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">This is an appeal arising out of the notice of appeal filed on 21 October 2020 by Arnoud Muller (Appellant) against Benoiton Construction (Pty) Ltd (Respondent), being dissatisfied with the decision of Judge M. Vidot given at the Supreme Court on 10 September 2020 in Civil Side No. MA 59 of 2020 dismissing the Appellant’s application (MA 59/2020) to set aside the ex-parte judgement delivered in civil suit 04/2017. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant has three grounds of appeal set out in paragraph 2 of the notice of appeal to be considered in detail below. The Appellant further seeks the reliefs set out in paragraph 3 of its notice of appeal namely, the setting aside and reversal of the impugned judgment; and that the Appellant be given a fair chance and opportunity of right of hearing on the merits<i>.</i></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>BACKGROUND </b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="3"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">On 14 March 2017, a Plaint was filed by the Respondent against the Appellant (CC 04/2017). The matter was initially fixed for a hearing on 11<sup></sup>October 2018 and at that instance, Counsel for the Appellant (Defendant in the court below) Mr  S. Rajasundaram asked for an adjournment citing that his client was unable to attend owing to a heart attack he had suffered. A medical report was produced to support this averment and the trial Court granted the adjournment as sought.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">A hearing was set to ensue 8 months later on 10 June 2019 and 15 June 2019. Although the Appellant was not physically present at the time, his attorney Mr S. Rajasundaram was present. At that instance, counsel once again requested an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the Appellant was unable to travel to Seychelles owing to health issues. At that juncture, the trial Court refused to grant the sought adjournment in the absence of supporting documents, and with this, the counsel withdrew his appearance from the case. The matter proceeded ex-parte on 10 June 2019 and a judgment was delivered on 17 February 2020 (<i>Benoiton Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Muller</i> CC04 of 2014 SCSC 131 (17 February 2020)).</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant on 30 March 2020 filed a motion to set aside the ex parte judgment dated 17 February 2020 and that the case be heard <i>inter-partes</i> on the merits. The application was made in terms of section 69 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure and was supported by an affidavit sworn by attorney-at-law Mr. S Rajasundaram. The Respondent filed an affidavit in reply resisting the application.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the application, counsel for the Appellant set out the reasons for the non-appearance of the Appellant on the date the case was set for hearing. He stated that the Appellant (applicant in the lower court) was a foreigner and at all material times an aged person with ailing health problems. The Respondent resisted the application on the premise that despite claiming that the applicant had a medical predicament, no medical report nor affidavit was produced to court to support claims that the applicant was indeed medically unfit to travel to Seychelles to attend court. The Respondent also advanced the argument that counsel for the Appellant could have represented his client and cross-examined witnesses. Upon cogitating on arguments presented by both parties, the application was dismissed by learned Judge Vidot.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is against this background that this appeal arises. </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>GROUNDS OF APPEAL </b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="8"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant sets out three grounds of appeal which in the verbatim state as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">“<i>Ground No. 1: The learned Judge erred in his findings and failed to appreciate the Appellant was set ex-parte and the decision was made in the absence of the Appellant without having given any opportunity to him on his right to a fair hearing.</i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Ground No. 2: The learned Judge failed to issue Notice to the Appellant when the matter was set ex-parte, the ex-parte hearing took place 10<sup>th</sup> June 2019 &amp; 15.10.2019 without having served any notice to the Appellant and the judgment was given 17<sup>th</sup> February 2020. (notice ought to have been served on the Appellant).</span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Ground No. 3: The learned Judge failed to appreciate the reason for the absence of the appellant (a foreign national) namely ill-ness and hospitalization and was also out of the Republic of Seychelles at all material times of the hearing of the matter.</span></span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant seeks three reliefs. First, it is prayed that the Ruling in the lower court be set aside, consequently setting aside the ex-parte Judgment of 17 February 2022 and simultaneously remitting the matter back to Supreme Court to re-hear the matter <i>inter-partes.</i> Secondly, it is prayed that this Court makes an order it finds just in the case. Thirdly and finally, it is prayed that costs be awarded for the Appellant at both the trial and appellate court.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Appellant’s Submission</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="10"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">By way of submissions of 4 November 2022, the appellant in a gist submits as follows.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant seeks to consolidate all three grounds of appeal on the basis that all the grounds revolve around one core issue of setting aside the ex-parte judgment given against the appellant and in favour of the respondent. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is submitted that the main grievance of the appellant, a foreign national and an aged person, is that the court below has not given him a chance to produce a medical certificate especially when the appellant’s attorney had made an undertaking to produce the medical certificate on the second hearing date, namely 15 June 2019.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">That the court below justified refusing the motion for the appellant to adjourn the hearing on the basis that it was the second time the appellant moved for adjournment. With an unsuccessful motion for adjournment, counsel for the appellant could not proceed with the hearing in the absence of his client as he wanted his client to be present while the hearing took place. It is argued that under these compelling circumstances, the appellant’s attorney had to withdraw his appearance for the appellant. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is further submitted that the court below grossly failed to issue a notice to the appellant before proceeding with the hearing. Therefore in proceeding to hear the case <i>ex-parte</i> without resorting to the procedure of issuing notice to the appellant, it violated the <i>audi alteram partem</i> rule. Reference is made to the cases of <i>Republic v Ladouceur and Ladouceur v Republic [2009] SLR 131, Registrar of the Supreme Court v Public Service Appeals Board and Others (SCA CL 06/2020) [2021] SCCA 13, </i>to illustrate the essence of the right to a fair hearing.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is further submitted that the court below failed to appreciate the necessity of the presence of the appellant. While the court below felt that the appellant’s attorney could have proceeded only up to the level of cross-examining, it is submitted that the court failed to appreciate that the appellant’s attorney would have only been prompted to move for an adjournment in the absence of the appellant even if the hearing proceeded.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The appellant submits further, citing section 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure in support of the argument. That because the appellant was unaware of his attorney’s withdrawal, he should not be penalized with the hearing proceeding without notice to him given the exorbitant sum claimed in the plaint and the subsequent ex-parte judgment for USD 127,664.14.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Appellant further cites section 69 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, section 69 contemplates various scenarios under which the court can set aside its judgment. One of those scenarios is namely, <i>“….or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall set aside the judgment…..”</i>. It is submitted that the appellant did not risk until the filing of the execution application to enforce the judgment given <i>ex-parte</i> against him, rather chose to rush to court well before the filing of the execution application against him.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">With regards to the appellant’s attorney choosing to swear an affidavit in support of the appellant’s notice of motion, it is submitted that it was purely to maintain the professional obligation and to maintain ethical standards towards his client. It is submitted additionally, that the law is not strict in prohibiting or barring the attorneys from swearing affidavits in support of the notice of motion. With this, it is submitted that the court below wrongly declined the notice of motion based on a defective affidavit.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>Respondent’s Submissions </b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="19"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">By way of submissions of 24 November 2022, the respondent in a gist submits as follows.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">With respect to the first ground of appeal, the respondent submits that the ground of appeal is erroneous in that the appellant was granted the opportunity to be heard and his right to a fair hearing was observed at all times by the trial court. This Court has been referred to the proceedings of the court below of 11 October 2018 and 10 June 2019, which were annexed to the affidavit of the respondent sworn in reply to the application to set aside the judgment delivered by the court in the main case.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is submitted that upon the court refusing the viva voce application to adjourn the hearing of 10 June 2019, counsel for the appellant decided to withdraw from the matter. That it was not the court who requested counsel to withdraw his appearance for the appellant, but rather counsel took it upon himself to withdraw his appearance, on the basis that he had no further instructions. That the right to a fair hearing of the appellant was at all times respected and it was the appellant’s counsel who decided to withdraw his appearance. If at all, the appellant should take issue with the decision of his counsel to withdraw his appearance.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">With reference to the right to a fair hearing as per article 19 (7) of the Constitution, this court is referred to section 70 of the SCCP which provides that, </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“A party to a cause or matter may, except when otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, <b><u>appear in person or by an attorney or barrister at law.</u></b> A party, not resident within Seychelles may appoint some other person by power of attorney to appear on his behalf: Provided that the court may for sufficient reasons allow any other person to appear on behalf of any party”.</span></i> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Emphasis is mine)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="23"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is thus submitted that the appellant in the exercise of his right to a fair hearing under article 19 (7) of the Constitution and section 70 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure, elected to be represented by an attorney-at-law counsel Mr. S Rajasundaram. Since the appellant’s counsel decided to withdraw his appearance on the day of the trial, any possible breach of the appellant’s right would have been caused by the attorney-at-law and therefore, the appellant should claim any remedy against his counsel.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In answer to the second ground of appeal, the respondent adopts the response for the first ground of appeal. It is further submitted that this ground of appeal is also erroneous in that the appellant is seeking to challenge the decision of the learned trial judge on 10 June 2019, through the backdoor. That this ground is misconceived as the appellant is out of time to seek to challenge the decision of the court on the above-stated date. On that basis, the court ought to dismiss this ground of appeal. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In respect of the third ground of appeal that the arguments advanced for the first ground of appeal are adopted. It is submitted that appellant is once again seeking to appeal against the decision of the learned trial judge through the backdoor. That in any event, there was no evidence adduced before the trial court on 10 June 2019 in support of the application, to establish that the appellant was indeed sick and hospitalized on 10 June 2019. In particular, there was no medical certificate produced before the court to confirm that the appellant was indeed sick and hospitalized. Furthermore, it was submitted that there was no notice of motion supported by an affidavit filed before the court.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is further submitted that the application, which was filed eight months after the hearing on 10 June 2019, was not supported by any affidavit from the appellant to confirm that he was indeed sick and hospitalized in on the day of the hearing of the main case. Moreover, there was no medical certificate exhibited in the affidavit of the attorney-at-law Mr. S Rajasundaram to establish that the appellant was indeed sick and hospitalized on 10 June 2019.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Respondent further submitted that there were certain aspects of the impugned judgment which was unchallenged namely in paragraph [9] and [13] of the judgment where the trial judge stated that – </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“[9] [H]owever, in order to invoke section 69 the party against whole judgment is given must not have appeared in court on the date fixed in the summons. We are here dealing with a different situation; the Applicant did not fail to appear on the date fixed in the summons. He failed to appear only after the case had been fixed for hearing and that was not the first hearing date. There were previous hearing dates that were aborted and reason for such adjournment had been the ill health of the Applicant which was supported with medical report. In Biancardi v Electronic Alarm [1975] SLR 31, a case being relied upon by Counsel for the Respondent also, the following was observed</span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“The final question is whether the defendant is entitled to invoke section 69. Reading section 69, it is clear that to satisfy its provision one of the essential requirements is that the party invoking the same must not have appeared on the date fixed in the summons for appearance before court. In other words, section 69 applies only in the case where the party, against whom the judgment has been given ex-parte, has not appeared on the date fixed in the summons for appearance under section 63. Section 6 deals with the requirement that on the date fixed in the summons for the Defendant to appear and answer the claim that the parties are in attendance at the court in person or by the representative attorney or agent. As pointed out by Counsel for the Respondent one has to also look at section 65 SCCP. Section 65 provides for procedure when the defendant does not appear on the date fixed in the summons. In such case, after due proof of service of the summons, the court may proceed to hear the suit and give judgment or may adjourn the case for hearing of the suit ex-parte”.</span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“[13][T]he Respondent final bone of contention is that the affidavit in support of the Application sworn by Mr Rajasundaram, Counsel for the Applicant is defective. First, I note that it appears that Counsel is swearing an affidavit on behalf of his client, the Applicant, yet does not state that he is authorised to swear such affidavit. However, the fact that he is Counsel representing the Applicant and swears an affidavit for him that makes the affidavit defective. This is because Counsel cannot place himself in the position of a witness to the case and for that matter swears an affidavit. If Counsel has chosen to swear the affidavit he cannot himself represent the Applicant. I hold that in such circumstances, the Applicant should have sought the assistance of another counsel to argue the application”</span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol start="28"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It was submitted that there are no grounds of appeal raised in respect of the two above-mentioned findings and hence, in essence, even if the appeal was to succeed on the grounds raised by the appellant, the judgment should be upheld based on the stated findings of the court, which have not been challenged.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Respondent moves for the dismissal of the appeal with costs. </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="30"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Court takes note of the Appellant’s heads of argument in which Counsel states that he seeks to consolidate the grounds into one. Having read the grounds, I am of the view that Ground 1 and 3 may be dealt with together, while Ground 2 is sufficient to stand on its own. As such, I proceed to deal first with Grounds 1 and 3 and then followed by Ground 2.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>GROUNDS 1 AND 3</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="31"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The essence of ground 1 is that the absence of the Appellant was justified. In those circumstances, the Court proceeding to hear the matter in the absence of the Appellant impinges on his right to a fair hearing. It was submitted that the Appellant could not be physically present because he was and remains in his home country, Netherlands, due to physical ailments. Notwithstanding physical absence for one reason or another, I find that a defendant in a matter may be considered present through representation of counsel. In the present case, the Appellant being domiciled in Netherlands, was duly represented by his counsel Mr. Rajasundaram up to the point where counsel formally withdrew. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">At the juncture of the withdrawal by Counsel, it can be said the Appellant (defendant in trial court) was absent and thus failed to appear for the hearing. Counsel submits that in failing to give the Appellant notice following withdrawal of Counsel, the Appellant was denied the opportunity to be heard. Counsel has placed emphasis on the cases of Re: <i>Republic v Ladouceur</i> and <i>Ladouceur v Republic</i> [2009] SLR 13, as well as <i>Registrar of the Supreme Court v Public Service Appeals Board and Ors (SCA CL 6 of 2020) [2021] SCCA 11 (30 April 2021)</i> where both courts pronounced on the importance of courts to hear parties to a suit. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is the further submission of Counsel, that the Appellant has recourse under section 69 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure. I shall explore this provision below.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Respondent through its counsel Mr B. Hoareau argued in skeleton heads of arguments filed 24 November 2022. Therein, arguments for the first ground are also adopted for the third ground.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is the contention of the Respondent that the Appellant was in fact granted the opportunity to be heard and his right to a fair trial was observed at all times by the Court. To support this, the Appellant draws in on the events that preceded the ex-parte hearing from which the impugned judgment was delivered. A hearing was set for the 10<sup>th</sup> of June 2019 following a previous adjournment of an 11<sup>th</sup> October 2018 adjournment. It is the submission of the Respondent that because a viva voce application to adjourn the 10<sup>th</sup> June 2019 hearing failed, counsel for the Appellant withdrew from the matter. It is also submitted that Counsel withdrew on the basis that he had no further instructions. In respect of the right to a fair hearing, it is the submission of the Respondent that the Appellant exercised the same through representation by Counsel. Therefore, where counsel withdrew his appearance, the Appellant must take issue and claim any remedy against said Counsel rather than the Court as he does so now.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Respondent adopts similar arguments for ground 3, and also argues that the Appellant did not produce a medical certificate to support his averments that he was hospitalized on the day of the hearing. Finally, the Respondent argues that the aspects of the impugned judgment that are not challenged in this appeal, namely paragraphs [9] and [13], and therefore the judgment should be upheld on the basis on the findings made in these paragraphs.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The learned Judge took cognisance of the Appellant’s arguments in the lower court in respect of those arguments advanced for section 69 of the SCCP which reads as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; text-indent:.5in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“69. Setting aside judgment given ex parte </span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">If in any case where one party does not appear on the day fixed in the summons, judgment has been given by the court, the party against whom judgment has been given may apply to the court to set it aside by motion made within one month after the date of the judgment if the case has been dismissed, or within one month after execution has been effected if judgment has been given against the defendant, and if he satisfies the court that <b>the summons was not duly served</b> or <b>that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing</b>, the court <b>shall set aside the judgment </b>upon such terms as to costs, payment into court or otherwise <b>as it thinks fit</b> and shall order the suit to be restored to the list of cases for hearing. Notice of such motion shall be given to the other side.”</span></i> </span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Emphasis is mine)    </span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="38"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The trial judge rejected that the Appellant may rely on section 69 of thereof the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure. He states, at paras [9] and [10], as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">“[9]     However, in order to invoke section 69 the party against whom judgement is given must not have appeared in court on the date fixed in the summons. We are here dealing with a different situation; the Applicant did not fail to appear on the date fixed in the summons. He failed to appear only after the case had been fixed for hearing and that was not the first hearing date. There were previous hearing dates that were aborted and reason for such adjournment had been ill health of the Applicant which was supported with medical report. …</span></i></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">[10]      ….section 69 has no application to the Applicant’s situation as he did appear on the on the day fixed in the summons.”</span></i></span></span></span></p> <ol start="39"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-top:16px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:14px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In refusing the applicability of section 69 to the present case, the learned judge was of the view that the section applied only in those instances where the defendant failed to appear on the date fixed in the summons. It was his view that the Appellant could not rely on section 69 mainly because he had in fact appeared on the date fixed for summons.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">On a closer reading of section 69, it is clear that the Court ought to be satisfied of one of two things to move on an application made under section 69. Either the defendant was not duly served the summons or was prevented from appearing when the matter was called for a hearing. However, before progressing to this, indeed a party who seeks relief under section 69 must have also failed to appear on the date fixed for summons. In essence, a party must have (i) failed to appear on the date fixed for summons; and (ii) satisfy the court that he or she was not duly served <i><u>or</u></i> was prevented by good reasons from appearing at the hearing. While it is clear that the Appellant relies on the fact that he was prevented from appearing for the hearing, he fails to satisfy the first part of the test which requires him to show that he did not appear on the date fixed for summons. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the circumstances, the Appellant cannot rely on section 69 of the SCCP. What is therefore apparent is that the law as it stands does not cater for instances where a party has appeared for the date fixed for summons, but fails to then appear on the date fixed for the hearing with good cause. In that instance, the Court may be moved by a party to exercise its equitable jurisdiction under section 6 of the Courts Act, which ensues when there is no legal remedy available. Equity would have been especially relevant in this case owing to the fact that the party does have a right to be heard as canvassed by the Appellant supra.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I take note that in the supporting affidavit of the application under section 69 of the SCCP, Mr Rajasundaram on behalf of the Appellant, attempted to move the Court to exercise rules of natural justice, employ equity and show understanding that the Appellant was suffering from ailments. While the arguments do have some merit, the trial Court was correct in rejecting the affidavit in support by virtue of the same being sworn by Counsel on behalf of the Appellant (paragraph [13] of the Ruling refers).</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the circumstances, Ground 1 has no merits. In view of this, Ground 3 pertaining to the weight of the reasons advanced for absence would also fall away and need not be discussed lengthily. In any regard, I note that while the Appellant submitted that he was suffering from ailments, it was also necessary that he produces the necessary documentary evidence of a medical report. In the absence of such, I do not see how the trial court or this Court should be moved in his favour.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">GROUND 2</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="44"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Counsel for the Appellant argues that following his own withdrawal and that the Appellant was also not physically present, the matter ought not to have proceeded without notice to the latter. It is argued by Counsel that section 183 mandates that notice be given to the defendant by the Registrar. With this, Counsel submits that the trial Court failed to apply section 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Counsel for the Respondent argues that ground 2 is erroneous in that the Appellant is seeking to challenge the decision the trial Court taken on 10 June 2019 through the backdoor. It is the contention of the Respondent that this Ground of appeal is misconceived because the Appellant is out of time to challenge the impugned decision.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Suffice it to say, I am not persuaded that section 183 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure finds application in this instance. I note that the trial judge took cognisance of the fact that section 183 applies in instances where a plaintiff discontinues a suit in terms of section 182 and the Registrar is called to issue notice to the defendant. I agree with the learned judge in this regard and find that the use of section 183 has no relevance in the present case. As such, Ground 2 has no merits.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">DECISION </span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <ol start="47"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having found no merit to each of the grounds of appeal as raised by the Appellant, the appeal is dismissed and the reliefs sought cannot be granted. The judgment of the lower court is thus upheld in its entirety.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>ORDER</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="48"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:14px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As a result, this Court orders as follows:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.5in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(i)        The appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the lower court is thus upheld in its entirety; and </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; text-indent:.5in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(ii)       No order is made as to costs.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Signed, dated, and delivered at Ile du Port on 16 December 2022. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> <span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">_______________</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">S. Andre, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I concur                                                                                   _______________      </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                                                                Dr. Twomey-Woods</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I concur                                                                                   _______________</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                                                                                Robinson, JA</span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Thu, 05 Jan 2023 06:48:58 +0000 Mithila Mudalige 5708 at http://seylii.org Salameh v North Island Company Limited (SCA 68 of 2022) [2022] SCCA 75 (16 December 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/court-appeal/2022/75 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Salameh v North Island Company Limited (SCA 68 of 2022) [2022] SCCA 75 (16 December 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Mithila Mudalige</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Thu, 01/05/2023 - 05:41</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="margin-left: 126px; text-indent: -94.5pt;"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt 99.0pt 117.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Grounds of appeal contravened Rule 18 (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules and provisions of Practice Direction No.1 of 2017.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p>1) The notice of appeal is struck out.<br /> (2) The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.<br /> (3) The orders of the Supreme Court are upheld.<br /> (4) With costs to the Respondent</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scca/2022/75/2022-scca-75.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=30441">2022-scca-75.docx</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Reportable</span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">[2022] SCCA 68 (16 December 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">SCA 5/2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Appeal arising from CA 23/2021 SCSC 349/2021)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:372px"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Ayyoub Salameh                                                                Appellant</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">          <b>                                                                                                            </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. Clifford Andre)</span></span></i>                                                  </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt center 3.25in"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i>         </i></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">North Island Company Limited                                       Respondent</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. Guy Ferley and Mr. Basil Hoareau)</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">+</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Neutral Citation:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"> <i>Salameh v North Island Company Limited </i>(SCA 5/2022) [2022] (Arising in CA 23/2021 SCSC 349/2021) (16 December 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Before: </span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                  Twomey-Woods, Robinson and Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JJA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt 99.0pt 117.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Summary:             Grounds of appeal contravened Rule 18 (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules and provisions of Practice Direction No.1 of 2017.</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt 99.0pt 117.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                7 December 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Delivered:              </span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">16 December 2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"> </p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ORDERS</span></span></span></b> </span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> <span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(1) The notice of appeal is struck out.</span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="background:white">(2) The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.</span><br /><span style="background:white">(3) The orders of the Supreme Court are upheld<span style="color:#4a4a4a">.</span></span><br /><span style="color:#4a4a4a"><span style="background:white">(4) With costs to the Respondent</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a"> .</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"> </p> </div> <div style="border-bottom:dotted windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:dotted windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:1.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b>                                                                 </b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">JUDGMENT</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="border:none; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">______________________________________________________________________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">DR. LILLIAN TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JA.</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Facts</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">This is an Appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court. Before the matter was lodged by in the Supreme Court, it was heard by the Employment Tribunal which ruled that the termination of the employment contract of Ayyoub Salameh (Appellant before this Court) by North Island Company Limited (Respondent) was unjustified.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-22.5pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">2.     The Tribunal ordered the company to pay the Applicant various sums of money.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal, the Respondent - North Island Company Limited – filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, against the Tribunal’s decision. For relief, the Respondent prayed that the decision of the Employment Tribunal be set aside and in the alternative, the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">3.     The Supreme Court Ruled in favour of the company and ordered that</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> the matter be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for a re-hearing. Furthermore, the Supreme Court dismissed a Cross-Appeal which had been filed by the Appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-22.5pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:112.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">4.     It is against the decisions of the Supreme Court that </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Ayyoub Salameh appealed to this Court.  </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">I have reproduced the grounds verbatim:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <ol><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 21 of his judgment by stating that: </span></span></span></span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"The Court also finds after perusing the records of the said imputed date of hearing namely the 20th July 2021, that there is no express agreement between the parties to the dispute present on record of the proceedings as to the tribunal sitting with only two members. As to the issue of the submissions of Counsel for the Respondent of which he cited Indian Authorities as to consent may be found by the conduct of the parties, since he submitted that no Counsel for the Respondent did not object to the Tribunal sitting with only 2 members and hence the Respondent is deemed to have consented by his conduct, this Court is of the view that since the word consent in Schedule 6 of section 73(A), paragraph 6 is not used in the said provision but rather the word agreement is used which has a broader meaning and which connotes the meeting of minds. Hence this Court finds that there is no express agreement or any agreement on the record of proceedings between the parties to the dispute as to the tribunal sitting with only 2 members. </span></span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">.... <b>So implying that there was no agreement when the conduct of the then Respondent/ Appellant indicated otherwise is not in accordance with law and facts as it will leave room for a party to flout the rules and if they fail to do certain things or object to matters during the hearing or any application for adjournment of the case or a hearing date, they will then state that their conduct did not mean as such.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.25in"> </p> <ol start="2"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 22 of his judgment in stating that the Employment Tribunal was not legally constituted at the time and whatever proceedings that took place during the sitting was null and void to all intent and purposes. In that regard the judge failed to consider Interpretation and General Provisions Act CAP 103, section 36, which states as follows:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.5pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>    </b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> “Where any act or thing is required to be done under an Act by more than two persons, a majority of them may do it.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">     It is therefore clear that the Learned Judge erred in law in considering that the words in the act could not be performed by 2 members when it was not a hearing but was just a request for an adjournment, which in fact has been customarily done in the Family tribunal, Employment tribunal, Rent Board and other tribunal when it comes to one member not present.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 23 of his judgment stating that:</span></span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"This Court also finds that although the Tribunal had decided on an application for an adjournment, the matter was fixed for hearing for the day of which it sat with only 2 members instead of 3 and hence in any event the said Tribunal could not have been able to hear the matter since it was improperly constituted at the time. This Court is also of the view that since it could not hear the matter on the day since in any event it was improperly constituted, the said Employment Tribunal did not exercise its discretion judiciously in not granting an adjournment on an application by the Respondent seeking an adjournment of the matter."</span></span></span></span></i> </span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The fact is that the Supreme Court acted ultra petita in considering an issue which was not even appealed against. The Court was wrong at this stage as it did not even take into consideration that if the witness was indeed present whether agreement would have been sought as per the said Schedule 6. The Judge definitely erred in law and in fact regarding this as he said that the tribunal did not exercise its discretion judiciously in not granting an adjournment on an application. To this regard, the court cannot say this as the discretion remained with the tribunal and the Supreme Court cannot interfere in such.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 24 of his judgment stating that:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"This Court further holds that as a result that the said Tribunal decided not to grant an adjournment when it could not hear the matter at the time being improperly constituted and as such did not hear the evidence of Mr. Manz, a material witness for the Respondent who could not give his evidence for the Respondent."<b> </b></span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear that at this stage the Judge erred as there is no evidence that the Tribunal would have taken the evidence of Mr. Manz without seeking agreement, which the Appellant states was by conduct, would not have been sought formally so that it could be on record. The fact that Mr. Manz was seeking for an adjournment more than once indicated that there was delaying tactics in this case, which the court failed to consider even if such was stated in the submission and argued orally in court. The Judge failed to consider such at all in his judgment which he should as the matter was argued and was in the written submission as well.</span></span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:50px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 24 of his judgment stating that: </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"the Respondent was denied the right to fair hearing in contravention of Article 18(7) of the Constitution." </span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Section 73 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure states that, on the day fixed in the summons for the defendant to appear and answer to the claim, the parties shall be in attendance at the Court House in person or by their respective attorneys or agents. </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Section 65 of the Civil Code also provides for the Procedure if defendant does not appear that, “</span></span></span></span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">if on the day so fixed in the summons when the case is called on the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not appear or sufficiently excuse his absence, the court, after due proof of the service of the summons, may proceed to the hearing of the suit and may give judgment in the absence of the defendant, or may adjourn the hearing of the suit ex parte.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear that the said hearing of Mr. Manz was scheduled so many times which the Judge fails to consider the submission of the Counsel for the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant. The Judge is wrong to say that Article 18(7) has been violated when in fact it is the right of the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant that was being violated by persistent delays by Mr. Manz.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is contended that Article 18 of the Constitution does not deal with right to fair hearing, but it is Article 19 that does stand the Judge heavily erred. However, in Article 19(7) the judge erred/ failed to consider that the said Article is clear as it states:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">“Any court or other authority required or empowered by law to determine the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial, and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other authority, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Judge failed to address his mind to the term within a reasonable time which the tribunal took consideration of having given a number of opportunities to the Respondent/Appellant/ Respondent with regards to Mr. Manz to give evidence via video link as he was declared a PI at the said time. From that, we can see that it is not the Respondent/Appellant’s right to fair hearing that was breached, but rather that of the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant's right that was breached by the violation of the constitution Article 19(7) as there were so many delays and the case was not being heard within a reasonable time even after having been given Mr. Manz more than once opportunity for him to give his evidence and that the motion was not properly supported by any documentary proof that he was indeed traveling and could not give evidence. This has not been the case to date and therefore the court should and cannot find that there was no fair hearing when there is full fair hearing for the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:50px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 24 of his judgment stating that: </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-indent:-13.5pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"The Court further holds that as a result that the said Tribunal decided not to grant an adjournment when it could not hear the matter at the time being improperly constituted and as such did not hear the evidence of Mr. Manz, a material witness for the Respondent who could not give his evidence for the Respondent, the Respondent was denied the right to fair hearing in contravention of Article 18(7) of the Constitution.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify; text-indent:4.5pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear at this stage that the Learned Judge did not and or failed to address his mind to the proceedings and the ruling of the Chairperson of the Tribunal when she clearly stated:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"I agree with Counsel for the Applicant that the Respondent's Counsel has made many averments from the bar, all of which could have been supported but which have not. It is agreed by all parties that the case would proceed virtually since 09/03/2021. On the 13/04/2021, the case was scheduled for virtual evidence of Mr. Manz (Manz) and since that date been adjourned on numerous occasions. At no relevant time has the Respondent objected to the evidence of their witness being taken virtually and in fact on the last date the case was adjourn for hearing via Skype because Mr. Menz (Manz) was traveling. Now today we find Counsel for the Respondent making an identical motion to the tribunal. Justice delayed is justice denied and this tribunal will not excuse tactics to delay the completion of this case. The Tribunal's diary is full up until October 2021 and we have on more than one occasion made special arrangements in order to complete this hearing-sitting on non-tribunal sittings, virtual hearing arrangements and coming in during my annual leave. I have considered the motion and we have decided that the Respondent was given ample opportunity to present its case, we will not grant any further adjournments in this case …”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">There can never be a violation of a right to fair hearing in this case as the Respondent was given adequate time to present its case and it failed to do so. The Judge erred in that regard completely.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 25 of his</span></span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> <b>judgment to allow ground 1 of the Appeal of the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent, in that</b> <b>the judge failed and erred in considering the submissions of the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant in all its circumstances.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="8"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 27, 28 &amp; 29 of his judgment when he stated that </span></span></span></span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"However this Court is of the view that the Cross-Appellant has 14 days to file its Notice of Cross Appeal from the date of the Notice of Appeal of the Appellant being filed in the Registry of the Supreme Court." </span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">This cannot be correct and the Cross Appellant would not know of the date that the Notice of Appeal was filed and it can only start counting when it is served. The Judge was definitely wrong in coming to such conclusion. The Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 19 clearly states that: <i>where there is no provision the court cannot make a provision or infer a provision, but rather should look at any existing laws in relation to such which is the Court of Appeal rules </i>2005, which states at Rule 19 in relation to Cross-appeal.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">“(1) Every respondent who wishes to cross-appeal shall deliver a notice of his/her cross-appeal within fourteen days after receiving the appellant's notice of appeal.</span></span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(2) The notice of cross-appeal shall comply with the provisions of sub-rules (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) herein and shall be substantially in the form D in the First Schedule hereto."</span></span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear that the Cross Appeal from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal should be done 14 days after the service of the Appeal and not from the date the Appeal was filed or </span></span></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">dated as in this case the Appeal is dated 8th September but it was filed on the 9th September as per the court stamp. Service was not effected on the 8th September 2021 by on the 16th September 2021, therefore making the 14 days from service to be 6th October 2021. The Cross Appeal was indeed filed on the 5th October 2021, which is well within the 14 days prescribed by law. Therefore, the Learned Judge was indeed wrong in law and in fact to have conclude that the Cross-Appeal was filed out of time and did not consider it at all.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="9"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded that the fact that the adjournment hearing was done with only 2 members without any consent on records/proceedings. The Judge failed/ ignored to address his mind to the fact that in this case there were many instances that the said tribunal sat with 2 members and there was no agreement on record. This is because the Interpretation act provides for such and the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent never filed a case but rather accepted such. How comes that only at this stage that this matter is being contested. In fact, the dates of such was for the adjournments of the case so that the said Mr. Manz (Menz) could give evidence virtually. These dates are as follows: 27th April 2021, 4th May 2021, 11th May 2021 and on the 20th July 2021. This is proof that the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent had been given ample opportunity and that there was no violation of his right to a fair hearing as claimed by the judge who we contend was totally wrong in coming to such a conclusion.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Relief Sought by the Appellant from the Court of Appeal:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(i) An order reversing the decision of the Learned Trial Judge and upholding the judgment of the Employment Tribunal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(ii) An order allowing the Cross-Appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(iii) Costs of the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Preliminary Objection by the Respondent.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">5.     Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection on the ground that all the grounds of appeal as drafted by the Appellant are contrary to Rule 18 (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules (2005) in that they are vague. He cited authorities in which this Court dismissed grounds which fell afoul of the rule.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> He argued that grounds 1 to 6, 8 and 9 are long-winded and evidently vague. The grounds are a mixture of quotations from the judgment of the Supreme Court and arguments. This has made it difficult to deduce the basis of each of these grounds. In regard to ground 7, Counsel argued that although it was not long-winded, the ground was vague and it fails to identify the findings being challenged.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">6.     Counsel prayed that on the basis of the contravention of Rule 18 (7), the Appeal should be dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">7.     In reply to the objection, Counsel for the Appellant conceded that the grounds were long-winded. He nevertheless argued that the grounds stated why the decision taken by the Trial Court were wrong and point to the error in law and fact. This, to him, meant that they were in compliance  with the rules.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Court’s Consideration</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">8.     In order to resolve the preliminary point of law, I must set out the various provisions which are critical in the drafting of a ground of Appeal. These are </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Rule 18 of the Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules 2005 and Amended Practice Direction N0.1 of 2017.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">9.     Rule 18 (3) obliges a party to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law to which the Appellant is objecting and to also state the particular respect in which the variation of the judgment or order is sought. It is this principle that the Respondent attempted to take refuge under.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:30px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">But that is not all, there is Rule 18 (7) which the Respondent cited in support of his arguments that the appeal be dismissed. It is that no ground of appeal which is vague shall be entertained.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">10.   I am aware that Rule 54 of the Court of Appeal Rules (2000) specifically prohibited a Notice of Appeal containing grounds which are argumentative and narrative. It obliged the drafter to be concise.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><sup><sup><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">[2]</span></span></span></span></sup></sup></a> I opine that the said provision was invaluable and “forced” the drafter to capture the essence of their dissatisfaction with the findings of fact that were contesting.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">11.   Following the amendment of the Rules in 2005, that provision was dropped and the current Rule 18 (7) only prohibits grounds which are vague. However, Practice Direction No.1 of 2017 recaptured what had been lost by virtue of the 2000 Rules. The Practice Direction provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:76px; margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(5) The identified grounds shall be in plain English and be clear, simple, concise and readily intelligible to the respondent as well as to the Court so as to enable them to properly respond to the challenge of a court decision already handed down.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:76px; margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(6) The grounds of appeal shall not be unduly lengthy, verbose, prolix or argumentative. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">12.   It must also be noted that the heads of argument filed by the Appellant were also problematic and contravened Rule 24 (2) (b) and (c)<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> as reproduced below:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:76px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">24 (2) (b): The heads of argument shall be clear, succinct and shall not contain unnecessary elaboration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:76px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:76px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">24 (2) (c): The heads of argument shall not contain lengthy quotations from the record or authorities. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">13.   A look at the grounds shows clearly that the grounds of appeal were poorly drafted and contravened several provisions cited above. It was a painstaking exercise to discern what the Appellant was contesting in respect of the lower court’s decision. The grounds are verbose and repetitive. In almost each and every ground, Counsel extensively reproduced extracts from the Trial Judge’s judgment. The Notice of Appeal also contained arguments which should have been presented in the written submissions/skeleton heads of argument. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">14.   Since the Appellant clearly failed to comply with the relevant provisions, I am duty-bound to strike out the Notice of Appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">15.   The orders of the Supreme Court are upheld. With costs to the Respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">_______________________</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">Dr. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">I concur                                                           _______________________</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:336px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">Dr. M. Twomey-Woods, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.5in 274.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">I concur                                                                        _______________________                                                                                F. Robinson, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"> Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 16 December 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>Chetty vs Esther <span style="font-size:10.5pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">[2021] SCCA 1</span></span></span></span>; Elmasry and Anor vs Hua Sun <span style="font-size:10.5pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">[2021] SCCA 66</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="color:#4a4a4a"> 54 (3) Every notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, without argument or narrative, the grounds of the appeal, specifying the points of law or fact which are alleged to have been wrongly decided together with particulars of such errors, such grounds to be numbered consecutively and to state the exact nature of relief sought and the precise form of the order which the appellant proposes to the Court to make … (My emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules, 2005.</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-957c4c9f248355ac0f260978b4b3a256dcc993489dbeab64965ee674754e47ea"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Reportable</span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">[2022] SCCA 68 (16 December 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">SCA 5/2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(Appeal arising from CA 23/2021 SCSC 349/2021)</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:372px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:372px"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Ayyoub Salameh                                                                Appellant</span></span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">          <b>                                                                                                            </b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. Clifford Andre)</span></span></i>                                                  </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt center 3.25in"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i>         </i></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">and</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">North Island Company Limited                                       Respondent</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(rep. by Mr. Guy Ferley and Mr. Basil Hoareau)</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">+</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Neutral Citation:</span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"> <i>Salameh v North Island Company Limited </i>(SCA 5/2022) [2022] (Arising in CA 23/2021 SCSC 349/2021) (16 December 2022)</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Before: </span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                  Twomey-Woods, Robinson and Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JJA</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt 99.0pt 117.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Summary:             Grounds of appeal contravened Rule 18 (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules and provisions of Practice Direction No.1 of 2017.</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="tab-stops:94.5pt 99.0pt 117.0pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">                                7 December 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Delivered:              </span></span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">16 December 2022</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:126px; text-indent:-94.5pt"> </p> <div style="border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">ORDERS</span></span></span></b> </span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"> <span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">(1) The notice of appeal is struck out.</span></span></span></span><br /><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="background:white">(2) The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.</span><br /><span style="background:white">(3) The orders of the Supreme Court are upheld<span style="color:#4a4a4a">.</span></span><br /><span style="color:#4a4a4a"><span style="background:white">(4) With costs to the Respondent</span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:10.5pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a"> .</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"> </p> </div> <div style="border-bottom:dotted windowtext 1.0pt; border-top:dotted windowtext 1.0pt; border-left:none; border-right:none; padding:1.0pt 0in 0in 0in"> <p style="border:none; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b>                                                                 </b></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="center" style="border:none; text-align:center; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">JUDGMENT</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="border:none; padding:0in"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="text-autospace:none"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">______________________________________________________________________________</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">DR. LILLIAN TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, JA.</span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Facts</span></span></span></u></b></span></span></span></p> <ol><li style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">This is an Appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court. Before the matter was lodged by in the Supreme Court, it was heard by the Employment Tribunal which ruled that the termination of the employment contract of Ayyoub Salameh (Appellant before this Court) by North Island Company Limited (Respondent) was unjustified.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-left:54px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-22.5pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">2.     The Tribunal ordered the company to pay the Applicant various sums of money.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal, the Respondent - North Island Company Limited – filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, against the Tribunal’s decision. For relief, the Respondent prayed that the decision of the Employment Tribunal be set aside and in the alternative, the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing"> </p> <p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">3.     The Supreme Court Ruled in favour of the company and ordered that</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> the matter be remitted to the Employment Tribunal for a re-hearing. Furthermore, the Supreme Court dismissed a Cross-Appeal which had been filed by the Appellant. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-22.5pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:112.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">4.     It is against the decisions of the Supreme Court that </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Ayyoub Salameh appealed to this Court.  </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">I have reproduced the grounds verbatim:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <ol><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 21 of his judgment by stating that: </span></span></span></span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"The Court also finds after perusing the records of the said imputed date of hearing namely the 20th July 2021, that there is no express agreement between the parties to the dispute present on record of the proceedings as to the tribunal sitting with only two members. As to the issue of the submissions of Counsel for the Respondent of which he cited Indian Authorities as to consent may be found by the conduct of the parties, since he submitted that no Counsel for the Respondent did not object to the Tribunal sitting with only 2 members and hence the Respondent is deemed to have consented by his conduct, this Court is of the view that since the word consent in Schedule 6 of section 73(A), paragraph 6 is not used in the said provision but rather the word agreement is used which has a broader meaning and which connotes the meeting of minds. Hence this Court finds that there is no express agreement or any agreement on the record of proceedings between the parties to the dispute as to the tribunal sitting with only 2 members. </span></span></span></span></i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">.... <b>So implying that there was no agreement when the conduct of the then Respondent/ Appellant indicated otherwise is not in accordance with law and facts as it will leave room for a party to flout the rules and if they fail to do certain things or object to matters during the hearing or any application for adjournment of the case or a hearing date, they will then state that their conduct did not mean as such.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.25in"> </p> <ol start="2"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 22 of his judgment in stating that the Employment Tribunal was not legally constituted at the time and whatever proceedings that took place during the sitting was null and void to all intent and purposes. In that regard the judge failed to consider Interpretation and General Provisions Act CAP 103, section 36, which states as follows:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-13.5pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>    </b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> “Where any act or thing is required to be done under an Act by more than two persons, a majority of them may do it.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">     It is therefore clear that the Learned Judge erred in law in considering that the words in the act could not be performed by 2 members when it was not a hearing but was just a request for an adjournment, which in fact has been customarily done in the Family tribunal, Employment tribunal, Rent Board and other tribunal when it comes to one member not present.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <ol start="3"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 23 of his judgment stating that:</span></span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"This Court also finds that although the Tribunal had decided on an application for an adjournment, the matter was fixed for hearing for the day of which it sat with only 2 members instead of 3 and hence in any event the said Tribunal could not have been able to hear the matter since it was improperly constituted at the time. This Court is also of the view that since it could not hear the matter on the day since in any event it was improperly constituted, the said Employment Tribunal did not exercise its discretion judiciously in not granting an adjournment on an application by the Respondent seeking an adjournment of the matter."</span></span></span></span></i> </span></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The fact is that the Supreme Court acted ultra petita in considering an issue which was not even appealed against. The Court was wrong at this stage as it did not even take into consideration that if the witness was indeed present whether agreement would have been sought as per the said Schedule 6. The Judge definitely erred in law and in fact regarding this as he said that the tribunal did not exercise its discretion judiciously in not granting an adjournment on an application. To this regard, the court cannot say this as the discretion remained with the tribunal and the Supreme Court cannot interfere in such.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 24 of his judgment stating that:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"This Court further holds that as a result that the said Tribunal decided not to grant an adjournment when it could not hear the matter at the time being improperly constituted and as such did not hear the evidence of Mr. Manz, a material witness for the Respondent who could not give his evidence for the Respondent."<b> </b></span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-.25in"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear that at this stage the Judge erred as there is no evidence that the Tribunal would have taken the evidence of Mr. Manz without seeking agreement, which the Appellant states was by conduct, would not have been sought formally so that it could be on record. The fact that Mr. Manz was seeking for an adjournment more than once indicated that there was delaying tactics in this case, which the court failed to consider even if such was stated in the submission and argued orally in court. The Judge failed to consider such at all in his judgment which he should as the matter was argued and was in the written submission as well.</span></span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:50px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 24 of his judgment stating that: </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"the Respondent was denied the right to fair hearing in contravention of Article 18(7) of the Constitution." </span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Section 73 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure states that, on the day fixed in the summons for the defendant to appear and answer to the claim, the parties shall be in attendance at the Court House in person or by their respective attorneys or agents. </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Section 65 of the Civil Code also provides for the Procedure if defendant does not appear that, “</span></span></span></span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">if on the day so fixed in the summons when the case is called on the plaintiff appears but the defendant does not appear or sufficiently excuse his absence, the court, after due proof of the service of the summons, may proceed to the hearing of the suit and may give judgment in the absence of the defendant, or may adjourn the hearing of the suit ex parte.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear that the said hearing of Mr. Manz was scheduled so many times which the Judge fails to consider the submission of the Counsel for the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant. The Judge is wrong to say that Article 18(7) has been violated when in fact it is the right of the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant that was being violated by persistent delays by Mr. Manz.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is contended that Article 18 of the Constitution does not deal with right to fair hearing, but it is Article 19 that does stand the Judge heavily erred. However, in Article 19(7) the judge erred/ failed to consider that the said Article is clear as it states:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">“Any court or other authority required or empowered by law to determine the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation shall be established by law and shall be independent and impartial, and where proceedings for such a determination are instituted by any person before such a court or other authority, the case shall be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Judge failed to address his mind to the term within a reasonable time which the tribunal took consideration of having given a number of opportunities to the Respondent/Appellant/ Respondent with regards to Mr. Manz to give evidence via video link as he was declared a PI at the said time. From that, we can see that it is not the Respondent/Appellant’s right to fair hearing that was breached, but rather that of the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant's right that was breached by the violation of the constitution Article 19(7) as there were so many delays and the case was not being heard within a reasonable time even after having been given Mr. Manz more than once opportunity for him to give his evidence and that the motion was not properly supported by any documentary proof that he was indeed traveling and could not give evidence. This has not been the case to date and therefore the court should and cannot find that there was no fair hearing when there is full fair hearing for the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:50px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 24 of his judgment stating that: </span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-indent:-13.5pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"The Court further holds that as a result that the said Tribunal decided not to grant an adjournment when it could not hear the matter at the time being improperly constituted and as such did not hear the evidence of Mr. Manz, a material witness for the Respondent who could not give his evidence for the Respondent, the Respondent was denied the right to fair hearing in contravention of Article 18(7) of the Constitution.”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify; text-indent:4.5pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear at this stage that the Learned Judge did not and or failed to address his mind to the proceedings and the ruling of the Chairperson of the Tribunal when she clearly stated:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"I agree with Counsel for the Applicant that the Respondent's Counsel has made many averments from the bar, all of which could have been supported but which have not. It is agreed by all parties that the case would proceed virtually since 09/03/2021. On the 13/04/2021, the case was scheduled for virtual evidence of Mr. Manz (Manz) and since that date been adjourned on numerous occasions. At no relevant time has the Respondent objected to the evidence of their witness being taken virtually and in fact on the last date the case was adjourn for hearing via Skype because Mr. Menz (Manz) was traveling. Now today we find Counsel for the Respondent making an identical motion to the tribunal. Justice delayed is justice denied and this tribunal will not excuse tactics to delay the completion of this case. The Tribunal's diary is full up until October 2021 and we have on more than one occasion made special arrangements in order to complete this hearing-sitting on non-tribunal sittings, virtual hearing arrangements and coming in during my annual leave. I have considered the motion and we have decided that the Respondent was given ample opportunity to present its case, we will not grant any further adjournments in this case …”</span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:90px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">There can never be a violation of a right to fair hearing in this case as the Respondent was given adequate time to present its case and it failed to do so. The Judge erred in that regard completely.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="7"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 25 of his</span></span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222"> <b>judgment to allow ground 1 of the Appeal of the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent, in that</b> <b>the judge failed and erred in considering the submissions of the Applicant/Respondent/Appellant in all its circumstances.</b></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:108px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="8"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded in paragraph 27, 28 &amp; 29 of his judgment when he stated that </span></span></span></span></b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">"However this Court is of the view that the Cross-Appellant has 14 days to file its Notice of Cross Appeal from the date of the Notice of Appeal of the Appellant being filed in the Registry of the Supreme Court." </span></span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">This cannot be correct and the Cross Appellant would not know of the date that the Notice of Appeal was filed and it can only start counting when it is served. The Judge was definitely wrong in coming to such conclusion. The Court of Appeal Rules, Rule 19 clearly states that: <i>where there is no provision the court cannot make a provision or infer a provision, but rather should look at any existing laws in relation to such which is the Court of Appeal rules </i>2005, which states at Rule 19 in relation to Cross-appeal.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">“(1) Every respondent who wishes to cross-appeal shall deliver a notice of his/her cross-appeal within fourteen days after receiving the appellant's notice of appeal.</span></span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(2) The notice of cross-appeal shall comply with the provisions of sub-rules (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) herein and shall be substantially in the form D in the First Schedule hereto."</span></span></span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">It is clear that the Cross Appeal from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal should be done 14 days after the service of the Appeal and not from the date the Appeal was filed or </span></span></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">dated as in this case the Appeal is dated 8th September but it was filed on the 9th September as per the court stamp. Service was not effected on the 8th September 2021 by on the 16th September 2021, therefore making the 14 days from service to be 6th October 2021. The Cross Appeal was indeed filed on the 5th October 2021, which is well within the 14 days prescribed by law. Therefore, the Learned Judge was indeed wrong in law and in fact to have conclude that the Cross-Appeal was filed out of time and did not consider it at all.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="9"><li class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">The Learned Judge erred in law and fact to have concluded that the fact that the adjournment hearing was done with only 2 members without any consent on records/proceedings. The Judge failed/ ignored to address his mind to the fact that in this case there were many instances that the said tribunal sat with 2 members and there was no agreement on record. This is because the Interpretation act provides for such and the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent never filed a case but rather accepted such. How comes that only at this stage that this matter is being contested. In fact, the dates of such was for the adjournments of the case so that the said Mr. Manz (Menz) could give evidence virtually. These dates are as follows: 27th April 2021, 4th May 2021, 11th May 2021 and on the 20th July 2021. This is proof that the Respondent/Appellant/Respondent had been given ample opportunity and that there was no violation of his right to a fair hearing as claimed by the judge who we contend was totally wrong in coming to such a conclusion.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px"> </p> <p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Relief Sought by the Appellant from the Court of Appeal:</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(i) An order reversing the decision of the Learned Trial Judge and upholding the judgment of the Employment Tribunal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(ii) An order allowing the Cross-Appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(iii) Costs of the appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Preliminary Objection by the Respondent.</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">5.     Counsel for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection on the ground that all the grounds of appeal as drafted by the Appellant are contrary to Rule 18 (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules (2005) in that they are vague. He cited authorities in which this Court dismissed grounds which fell afoul of the rule.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="" id="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> He argued that grounds 1 to 6, 8 and 9 are long-winded and evidently vague. The grounds are a mixture of quotations from the judgment of the Supreme Court and arguments. This has made it difficult to deduce the basis of each of these grounds. In regard to ground 7, Counsel argued that although it was not long-winded, the ground was vague and it fails to identify the findings being challenged.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">6.     Counsel prayed that on the basis of the contravention of Rule 18 (7), the Appeal should be dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">7.     In reply to the objection, Counsel for the Appellant conceded that the grounds were long-winded. He nevertheless argued that the grounds stated why the decision taken by the Trial Court were wrong and point to the error in law and fact. This, to him, meant that they were in compliance  with the rules.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">Court’s Consideration</span></span></span></span></b></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">8.     In order to resolve the preliminary point of law, I must set out the various provisions which are critical in the drafting of a ground of Appeal. These are </span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Rule 18 of the Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules 2005 and Amended Practice Direction N0.1 of 2017.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">9.     Rule 18 (3) obliges a party to set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law to which the Appellant is objecting and to also state the particular respect in which the variation of the judgment or order is sought. It is this principle that the Respondent attempted to take refuge under.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:30px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">But that is not all, there is Rule 18 (7) which the Respondent cited in support of his arguments that the appeal be dismissed. It is that no ground of appeal which is vague shall be entertained.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">10.   I am aware that Rule 54 of the Court of Appeal Rules (2000) specifically prohibited a Notice of Appeal containing grounds which are argumentative and narrative. It obliged the drafter to be concise.<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="" id="_ftnref2"><sup><sup><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">[2]</span></span></span></span></sup></sup></a> I opine that the said provision was invaluable and “forced” the drafter to capture the essence of their dissatisfaction with the findings of fact that were contesting.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">11.   Following the amendment of the Rules in 2005, that provision was dropped and the current Rule 18 (7) only prohibits grounds which are vague. However, Practice Direction No.1 of 2017 recaptured what had been lost by virtue of the 2000 Rules. The Practice Direction provides as follows:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:76px; margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(5) The identified grounds shall be in plain English and be clear, simple, concise and readily intelligible to the respondent as well as to the Court so as to enable them to properly respond to the challenge of a court decision already handed down.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:76px; margin-bottom:13px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">(6) The grounds of appeal shall not be unduly lengthy, verbose, prolix or argumentative. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">12.   It must also be noted that the heads of argument filed by the Appellant were also problematic and contravened Rule 24 (2) (b) and (c)<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="" id="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></span></a> as reproduced below:</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:76px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">24 (2) (b): The heads of argument shall be clear, succinct and shall not contain unnecessary elaboration.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:76px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:76px; margin-left:76px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">24 (2) (c): The heads of argument shall not contain lengthy quotations from the record or authorities. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:72px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#222222">13.   A look at the grounds shows clearly that the grounds of appeal were poorly drafted and contravened several provisions cited above. It was a painstaking exercise to discern what the Appellant was contesting in respect of the lower court’s decision. The grounds are verbose and repetitive. In almost each and every ground, Counsel extensively reproduced extracts from the Trial Judge’s judgment. The Notice of Appeal also contained arguments which should have been presented in the written submissions/skeleton heads of argument. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:30px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-22.5pt; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">14.   Since the Appellant clearly failed to comply with the relevant provisions, I am duty-bound to strike out the Notice of Appeal.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">15.   The orders of the Supreme Court are upheld. With costs to the Respondent.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">_______________________</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">Dr. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-left:48px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">I concur                                                           _______________________</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:336px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">Dr. M. Twomey-Woods, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:330px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:3.5in 274.5pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span style="color:#202124">I concur                                                                        _______________________                                                                                F. Robinson, JA</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:11px; margin-left:48px; text-align:justify"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"> Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 16 December 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <div>  <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="tab-stops:22.5pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title="" id="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">[1]</span></span></span></span></span></a>Chetty vs Esther <span style="font-size:10.5pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">[2021] SCCA 1</span></span></span></span>; Elmasry and Anor vs Hua Sun <span style="font-size:10.5pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="font-family:&quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><span style="color:#4a4a4a">[2021] SCCA 66</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title="" id="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">[2]</span></span></span></span></span></a><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="color:#4a4a4a"> 54 (3) Every notice of appeal shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads, without argument or narrative, the grounds of the appeal, specifying the points of law or fact which are alleged to have been wrongly decided together with particulars of such errors, such grounds to be numbered consecutively and to state the exact nature of relief sought and the precise form of the order which the appellant proposes to the Court to make … (My emphasis)</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <div id="ftn3"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><span style="font-size:10pt"><span style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Calibri,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title="" id="_ftn3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align:super"><span style="font-size:10.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;">[3]</span></span></span></span></span></a> Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules, 2005.</span></span></span></p> </div> </div></span></div></div> </div> </div> Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:41:32 +0000 Mithila Mudalige 5704 at http://seylii.org Nowacki v Dabrowska (CS 21 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 739 (29 July 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/739 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Nowacki v Dabrowska (CS 21 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 739 (29 July 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Fabianna Savy</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 11/29/2022 - 05:35</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to make declaratory Judgment to declare marriage unlawful, null and void ab initio.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Unlimited jurisdiction – Inherent Jurisdiction – Equitable Jurisdiction – Article 125 of the Constitution – Section 5 and 6 of the Courts Act – Declaratory Judgment equitable or statutory remedy. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This Court has the necessary jurisdiction in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction that emanates from its unlimited jurisdiction, to determine whether or not to grant the declaratory Judgment being sought for.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/739/2022-scsc-739.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=30416">2022-scsc-739.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/739/2022-scsc-739.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=5714633">2022-scsc-739.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>B. Adeline, J</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]       This is a plaint filed in Court by one Michal, Tomasz, Nowacki (“the plaintiff”), who elects his legal domicile in the Law Chambers of Mr. Frank Elizabeth, Attorney-at-Law against one Katavzyna, Anna Dabrowska (“the defendant”), whose address is unknown.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]       In the plaint, as part of the pleadings, <i>interalia</i>, the following averments are made;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.0in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were lawfully married on the 07<sup>th</sup> May 2020, at Anse Kerlan, Praslin, Seychelles.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    2. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are of Polish nationality and at the time of their marriage they were residents of Anse Kerlan, Praslin.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    3. At the time of the said marriage, the Plaintiff was a businessman and a married man, the Defendant a manager and a spinster.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    4. There are no children born out of the said marriage.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    5. After the said marriage, the parties lived and cohabited temporarily at Anse Kerlan, Praslin, and</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    6. The plaintiff avers that the marriage should be declared unlawful, null and void ab initio for the following reasons:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    (a) at the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was already married to another person, and the marriage had not yet been dissolved.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]       The Plaintiff prays this Court for the following relief;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (i) A declaratory Judgment declaring the marriage unlawful and void ab initio.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>BACKGROUND</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]       This Court has taken judicial notice of previous proceedings involving the same parties by which the Plaintiff, (“previously the Petitioner”) had petitioned this Court for an Order of nullity of marriage under the provisions of Section 238 (1) (c) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, 2020 (“the code”) which was subsequently withdrawn.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]       Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff (the Petitioner then), withdrew the petition for the reason that the plaintiff could not satisfied the statutory requirement laid down by virtue of Section 229 (1) of the Code, that requires a party to a marriage, at the date when proceedings are commenced, <u>to be domiciled in Seychelles</u>, the effect of which, would have enabled this Court to seised jurisdiction to determine the petition and make a determination thereupon.  (Underlined emphasis is mine).</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]       As part of my thoughts over the relief being sought by the plaintiff, as well as over whether this Court is a Court of competent jurisdiction to grant the relief being sought, I have first and foremost, reminded myself of an extract in the case of Nyaro v Zading (YL 124 of 2015) [2016] NGCA No (28<sup>th</sup> July 2016) which I came across recently and which are pertinent to my approach in this case.  In that case, the Court stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“It is for this reason that the issue of competence, that is jurisdiction, can even be raised suo motu by the Court to ensure that matters before it are competent in order that the Court does not end up acting in vain and nullity if it turns out in the end that it indeed lacks the requisite competence to have heard and determine the cause, matter or action on appeal before it”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]       This pronouncement, is consistent with the views expressed by Dingake, JA in Vijay Construction Pty Ltd v Eastern European Engineering Limited SCA MA21/2022, who in his concurring Judgment, referred to a passage in the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “ Lilian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR before the Court of Appeal in Kenya, when the Court had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“The question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the Court seised of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it.  Jurisdiction is everything.  Without it, a Court has no power to make one or more step.  Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.  A Court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]       It is in order to clear any possible doubts over whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaint for a declaratory Judgment, that in the light of the extracts from the case law authorities specified in the preceding paragraphs, that suo motu, the Court raised the issue of jurisdiction, and called upon learned Counsel for the Plaintiff to address it on the issue of whether this Court is a Court of competent jurisdiction to hear the plaint, and indeed, grant the relief being sought.  For that, learned Counsel opted to provide the Court with a written submission.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]       In his submission, learned Counsel began, by providing the Court with a definition of jurisdiction taken from the Halsbury’s laws of England that reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>jurisdiction is the authority which of course has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision to stop the limits of this authorities are imposed by statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted.  If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]     Learned Counsel also found it necessary, to quote a passage from a ruling of the Court of Appeal in Vijay Construction Pty Limited vs. Eastern European Engineering Limited, MA 24/2020 arising in SCA 28/2020, that reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>The primary source of jurisdiction of a Court is found in the Constitution or Statute constituting that Court and investing it with authority to decide matters.  That authority may be unlimited or limited.  <u>Numerous texts and authorities have suggested that any Courts of unlimited original jurisdiction possess inherent jurisdiction</u>.”</i>  Underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]     This considered view, is one that emanates from different case law authorities, including the case of R vs. Forbes, exparte Bevan 1972 HCA 34, quoted by learned Counsel.  In that case, the Court had stated the following:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        “<i>Courts of unlimited jurisdiction have inherent jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]     Relying on these case law authorities, learned Counsel submitted, that this Court is a Court of unlimited jurisdiction, which as such, it has an inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief being sought in this instant case.  Learned Counsel argued, that such inherent jurisdiction has evolved from the English common law, and that the High Court inherent jurisdiction has developed over the years.  The case of Privatbaken vs. Aktieselskab Privatbanken [1978] SLR 226 was quoted, in which case, Sauzier J traced back the history of the creation of the Supreme Court in 1903, and confirmed, that in 1903, the Supreme Court of Seychelles became a Court of unlimited jurisdiction and given all the powers, privileges authority and jurisdiction of the High Court of justice in England.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]     This, as per learned Counsel’s submission, with the enactment of the Court’s Act, statutory provisions have been introduced, notably, by virtue of Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9 and Section 10 of the Court’s Act vesting into the Supreme Court different jurisdiction.  Learned Counsel made specific mention of Section 4 of the Court's Act, which expressly provides, <i>interalia</i>, that the Supreme Court “shall have and may exercise the powers, authorities and jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the High Court of justice in England, and Section 5 of the Court’s Act, which <i>interalia</i>, provides, that the Supreme Court shall have, and is hereby invested with, all the powers, privileges, authority and jurisdiction which is vested in, or capable of being exercised by the High Court of Justice in England”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]     In essence, therefore, the crux of learned Counsel’s submission on the issue of jurisdiction, is that, as a matter of procedural law, the Supreme Court does possess the necessary jurisdiction to grant the declaratory Order being sought for by the Plaintiff.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]     It is appropriate, at this juncture, for a consensus as to what the term jurisdiction means in the sphere of procedural law.  In an article in the Canterbury Law Review 10, (2005) II Canterbury Law Review 220, the author, one Joseph Rosara, gives a simple definition of jurisdiction by defining jurisdiction as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision</i>”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]     Rosara went on as to state, that jurisdiction is a substantive power to hear and determine a matter, and that it may be conferred by the statute under which the Court is constituted.  He calls this “statutory jurisdiction”.  According to him, such jurisdiction may be inherent in a particular Court, which is called inherent jurisdiction.  Rosara also argues, that one must distinguish between jurisdiction and power as he stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“All Courts possesses inherent powers which are incidental or ancillary to their substantive jurisdiction.  These ancillary powers are procedural rather than substantive in nature.  They enable the Court to give effect to its jurisdiction by enabling the Court to regulate its procedure and protect its proceedings”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]     The question that becomes relevant in the instant discussion, is, therefore, where does the Court’s jurisdiction derives?  In Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd vs. Eastern European Engineering Ltd MA No 24/2020 (arising in SCA 28/2020) [2022] SCCA 5 (21 March 2022) Robinson J A had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“34. The primary source of the jurisdiction of the Court is found in the Constitution or Statute constituting that Court and investing it with authority to decide matters. That authority maybe be unlimited or limited.  Numerous texts and authorities have suggested, that only Courts of unlimited original jurisdiction possess inherent jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]     As Judges, we often use the term “inherent jurisdiction”, when we feel that its use is necessary as a useful adjunct of one Court’s jurisdiction.  Inherent jurisdiction is a creature of the English common law.  Sir Jack Jacob has come up with a definition of inherent jurisdiction, which over the years, has been adopted in many common law jurisdiction, notably New Zealand, Canada and United Kingdom.  He defines inherent jurisdiction as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“residual source of powers, which the Court may draw upon as necessary, whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular, to ensure the observance of due process of the law to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice between parties and to secure a fair trial between them”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]     The vexed questions that are for consideration at this juncture, are;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(i) is inherent jurisdiction different from common law jurisdiction, and if so, what are the differences?, And</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(ii) is it necessary to retain inherent jurisdiction or common law jurisdiction, or indeed both, in order to ensure the proper and effective functioning of the Courts?</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In exparte Millsite Investments Co (Pty) Ltd 1965 (2) SA 582 (T) at 585 – G-H, the Court had this to say about the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“apart from the powers specifically conferred by statutory enactment and subject to any deprivations of power by the same source, a Supreme Court can entertain a claim or give an Order which, at common law, it would be entitled to entertain or give.  It is to that reservoir of power that references is made where in various judgments, Courts have spoken of the inherent power of the Supreme Court.  <u>The inherent power is not merely one derived from the need to make the Court’s Order effective, and to control its own procedure, but to hold the scales of justice where no specific law provides directly for a given situation.</u></i>  Underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]     Pollak on jurisdiction (1993) makes the following comment, amongst others;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“In short, therefore, the position is that unlike, say the Magistrate’s Court or the industrial Court, the power of the Supreme Court is not spelled out in a legislative framework and limited by its creating statute, it inherently has all such power as entitles it to entertain, to hear all causes arising within the area over which it exercises jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]     Pollak then proceeded to give examples of the exercise by the Supreme Court of its inherent jurisdiction;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (i) to regulate their own proceedings.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (ii) to control their own officers.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (iii) to prevent abuse of their process.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (iv) to maintain their dignity.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            (v) to ensure that substantial justice is not denied by a strict adherence to procedural rules.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As a point of caution, Pollak did emphasise, that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to create substantive law.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]     The effect of the exercise by the Supreme Court of its inherent jurisdiction, has been pronounced upon by Twomey, Justice of Appeal, who stated in Bristol v. Rosenbauer (SCA MA28/2021 [Arising in SCA 71/2018] (out of CS118/2012) [2022] SCCA 23 (29 April 2022), that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“ When a Court is called to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, so that it can properly regulate its own proceedings, it is essentially called to exercise a function that it already has or has already been clothed with, or to exercise a power in order to allow its orders to be effective.”</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[23]     In Pollak’s view, the term common law jurisdiction is used in the context of the common law which is a source of jurisdiction, which in effect, means that the Courts define their own jurisdiction given that they are the final Judges of what the common law is.  Clearly, therefore, the answers to the above questions, should all be in the affirmative.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[24]     Inherent jurisdiction is non-Constitutional or non-statutory jurisdiction which the Courts employ in a range of circumstances.  The Courts can use its inherent jurisdiction wherever and whenever it is just and necessary.  One of the fundamental features of inherent jurisdiction, is that it is exercised as part of the administration of justice and in relation to the process of litigation.  It is, therefore, procedural not substantive.  As correctly stated by Robinson JA in Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd (Supra) in this country, our Courts owe their existence not only by statutes but also the Constitution.  History shows, that the entirety of the English Superior Court’s jurisdiction was inherent, in that, it had no statutory or Constitutional basis, and that the enactment of statutes slowly started to codify the majority of that jurisdiction.  In essence, the powers and jurisdiction of the Court that remains uncodified or unregulated, overruled by statute, is the residual powers that has become known as inherent jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[25]     In Liang’s view, inherent jurisdiction indicates some sort of substantive authority based on the original and unlimited  jurisdiction superior Courts received from the sovereign.  This he says, is different from inherent powers which were instead a type of procedural authority incidental to a Court’s statutory authority.  In Adrian de Lange vs. Catherine Cillers (MA22/202) (Arising in DC137/2020), when addressing the nature and scope of inherent jurisdiction, I expressed my firm belief, that inherent jurisdiction “facilitate the Courts in exercising full judicial power in all matters concerning the general administration of justice, and is part of procedural law.  I stated, that it is a “default power” that operates where there is no express power, and that you invoke it to ensure convenience and fairness”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[26]     The case of Auton Piller KG vs Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] (55 (CA) is an example where the concept of inherent jurisdiction has been used (in the English Court).  This case established the jurisdiction to grant an exparte order to a party to enter, search and remove property from the premises for its opponent in civil litigation when it is likely that the opponent was going to destroy legal evidence.  The Court of Appeal admitted, that there was little precedent, statutory or common law, to warrant such an Order, but that it was necessary so as to do justice between the parties, and therefore, justified through the invocation of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[27]     In other jurisdiction, notably Singapore, the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is recognised by rules of Courts, and is termed as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in these rules shall be decreased to limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make any Order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[28]     In UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine &amp; Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pty Ltd and Others, the Court had to consider whether the Court’s inherent jurisdiction extended “to the making of Orders against persons who are not parties to this action, requiring them to furnish hand writing samples”.  The Court held, that it had jurisdiction to make an Order for discovery under the rules of Court.  In the alternative, however, the Court went on to consider whether it could invoke its inherent jurisdiction to grant the Order.  It noted, “that rules of Court acknowledging the existence of inherent powers did not give the Court unlimited powers, and instead, the touch stone for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction was a necessity, whatever needed to be done to secure justice between the parties and avoid abuses of Court’s processes”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[29]     In Wee Soon Kim Anthony vs Law Society of Singapore [2011] 4, SLR 25 (SGCA) [26] the Court elaborated some principles which included the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“The Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction not only to avoid “injustice”, but also, to avoid “serious hardship or difficulty or danger ………” (as in the instant case).  Under current in this principle is the acceptance of the theoretically unlimited inherent jurisdiction.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[30]     The inherent jurisdiction of the high Court in New Zealand was examined by the Supreme Court in New Zealand in Mafart v Television New Zealand Ltd, when Elias, CJ stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“except to the extent modified by statute and rules, the Court continue to have inherent jurisdiction and powers to determine its own procedure.  The inherent jurisdiction is not ousted by the adoption of rules, but is regulated by the rules so far as they are extended.  To the extent that the rules do not cover a situation, the inherent jurisdiction supplies the deficiency”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[31]     In the context of the discussion so far in the preceding paragraphs, can it be said, convincingly, that learned Counsel’s proposition, coupled with his arguments in support thereof, that this Court does have an inherent jurisdiction to decide certain matters, and that it can make use of such jurisdiction to grant the declaratory Judgment being sought.  In other words, am I persuaded by his arguments, or I am not persuaded because his arguments do not hold water.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[32]     Learned Counsel’s arguments, stem from the premise, that the Supreme Court of Seychelles has an unlimited jurisdiction which emanates from Article 125 of the Constitution as well as Section 5 of the Courts Act.  For ease of reference, Article 125 of the Constitution reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“125 (1) There shall be a Supreme Court which shall, in addition to the jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Constitution, have;</i></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Original jurisdiction in matters relating to the application, contravention, enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Original jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate Courts, tribunals and adjudicating authority and, in this connection, shall have power to issue injunctions, directions, orders or writs including writs or orders in the nature of habeas Corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo warrant to as may be appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory jurisdiction, and</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Such other original, appellate and other jurisdiction as maybe conferred on it by or under an Act”.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[33]     Section 5 of the Courts Act, reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“5. The Supreme Court shall continue to have, and is hereby invested with full original jurisdiction to hear and determine all suits, actions, causes and matters under all laws for the time being in force in Seychelles relating to wills and execution of Wills, interdiction or appointment of a curator, guardianship of minors, adoption, insolvency, bankruptcy matrimonial causes and generally to hear and determine all civil suits, actions, causes matters that may be brought or may be pending before it, whatever may be the nature of such suits, actions, causes or matters, and in <u>exercising such jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall have, and is hereby invested with, all the powers, privileged, authority, and jurisdiction which is vested in, or capable of being exercised by the High Court of justice in England.</u>  </i>Underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[34]     For the purposes of this ruling, it is also worth noting Section 6 of the Court’s Act, that reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>6. The Supreme Court shall continue to be a Court of equity and is a hereby invested with powers, authority and jurisdiction to administer justice and to do all acts for the due execution of such equitable jurisdiction in all cases where no sufficient legal remedy is provided by the laws of Seychelles”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[35]     By reference to Article 125 of the Constitution, and Section 5 of the Court’s Act, learned Counsel argued, correctly and convincingly, that the Supreme Court has an unlimited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution and statutes.  His argument is supported by, and is accorded by Sauzier J’s passage in the case of Privatbanken v Aktieselskab when he stated, <i>interalia</i>, that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“In 1903 the Supreme Court of Seychelles became a Court of unlimited jurisdiction.”</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[36]     In his written submission, learned Counsel also argues, that he has resorted to invoking the Court’s inherent jurisdiction for the making of a declaratory order by way of entering a plaint in Court, because his client has no legal remedy under the provisions of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, albeit the fact, that the Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction by virtue of Article 125 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Courts Act.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[37]     As correctly submitted by learned Counsel, this is because the jurisdiction of this Court is limited by virtue of the expressed provisions of Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, to the extent that by virtue of Section 229 (1) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, a party to the marriage has to be domiciled in Seychelles at the date when proceedings are commenced, where the order being sought is for nullity of marriage under Section 238 (I) (c) read with Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020.  In the instant case, both of the parties are not domiciled in Seychelles.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[38]     It is the contention of learned Counsel, that Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act “is a stand along provision”, and as such, in order to do away with the requirement that either of the parties has to be domiciled in Seychelles, the seeking of a declaration that the marriage was unlawful, null and void ab initio should be entertained by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[39]     It is also the contention of learned Counsel, that the Court should make such a declaration, given that a marriage is a contract between two persons, and that, that is further emphasised by the use of the word “contracted” in various provisions under the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, notably, in Section 146, and that there are statutory obligations imposed on the parties to the marriage under Sections 201 and 203 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, for example.  Learned Counsel contends, making specific reference to “the Online Legal Information Institute”, that the English Common Law tradition, has long recognised marriage between a man and a woman as a legal contract with obligations on the parties, and that, such concept still remains relevant although the obligations have changed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[40]     To further strengthen his argument for the making of the declaratory Judgment being sought for on account of the substantive law of contract, learned Counsel drew this Court’s attention to Section 1131 (1) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, which provides, that “a contract that is unlawful has no legal effect”, and Section 1131 (2) which reads that “a contract is unlawful if its performance is prohibited by legislation, or is against public policy”.  In this regards, learned Counsel contended, that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is against Public Policy because the former was a married man when he contracted marriage with the latter.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[41]     In fact, the proposition that the Court will not enforce an agreement which is against public policy is backed up by several case law authorities in this jurisdiction, notably Bernard Monty vs. Alex Buron, and NSJ Construction (Pty) Ltd and Anor v F.B Choppy (Pty) Ltd (SCA160 of 2019) Appeal from CS27 of 2010, and 53 of 7 September 2021.  In reliance on these case law authorities, it is submitted by learned Counsel, that the contract of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the instance case, is not only against public policy because the plaintiff was already married when he contracted marriage with the Defendant, but also, because it is against the provision of Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[42]     As regards to learned Counsel’s proposition that a marriage in this country is a contract between a man and a woman, and that this is borne out, also, because of the frequent use of the word “contracted” under different provisions of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, such as, for example, under Section 146 of the Code, as much as the correctness of his submission on the substantive law of contract offers very little room for disagreement, it is my considered opinion, that the law of contract cannot be the legal substantive law basis to determine whether or not to grant the relief being sought for.  This is because to do so will be a clear manoeuvre to circumvent the provisions of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act.  I say so, because under Section 228 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, given that this is effectively a proceeding for nullity of marriage, it is a “matrimonial cause” governed by specific rules and statutory provisions under the code.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[43]     With emphasis on this contention, that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a contract against public policy because the plaintiff was already married when he contracted marriage, learned Counsel opined, that the law as it presently stands under the provisions of Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act is discriminatory given that it doesn’t afford foreigners who are not domiciled in Seychelles equal protection, and is, therefore, in consistent with Article 27 of the Constitution that gives every person a right to equal protection of the law including the enjoyment of the rights and freedom set out in the charter without discrimination on any ground except as is necessary in a democratic society.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[44]     However, learned Counsel has only moved this Court to refer this matter to the Constitutional Court under Article 46 (7) of the Constitution for a determination as to whether Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act is inconsistent with, and contravenes Article 27 of the Constitution, only if, the Court determines, that it has no jurisdiction to make a declaratory Judgment declaring the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant unlawful null, and void ab initio because it offends Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[45]     At this juncture, the question of whether a declaratory Judgment is an equitable or a statutory remedy is worthy of a discussion.  Historically, a declaratory Judgment has been regarded as a discretroriary remedy, although arguably, as early as the 19<sup>th</sup> Century Farwell LJ in Chapman vs Michaelson CA [1909] 1 CH 238, 243 took the view that it was not strictly an equitable relief.  In an Article published in the Canada Bar Review, Volume No 8, in October 1931, one Paul Martin had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“As in England, the granting of a declaratory decree lies within the Court’s discretion, and in the instances which tends to indicate the direction in which the discretion is usually exercised, seem to depend primarily upon the apparent utility and convenience in consequence of the declaration”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[46]     The author of the Article went on as to add that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“The question of utility looks at the result of the declaratory form of Judgment.  The element of convenience is best observed in the procedure, it being considered that the determination of rights can often be more conveniently ascertained by this method”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It appears, that historically Courts in Scotland, Canada and England for example, have followed the practice of not granting a declaratory Judgment where some other known remedy exists.  In Scotland for example, it is well documented, that Scotch Courts have historically made declarations regarding the validity of marriage (see Fazer, Husband and Wife 2<sup>nd</sup> ED. 1238, 1244).</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[47]     In other jurisdiction, such as in the United States, for example, a declaratory Judgment is considered to be a statutory remedy.  It appears, therefore, that in the absence of statutes (legislation) providing for a declaratory Judgment as a statutory remedy, we can conveniently subscribe to the view, that a declaratory Judgment is an equitable / discretionary remedy.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [48]    As such, one may wonder, why is it that in the instant case, the Court would not exercise its equitable jurisdiction conferred upon it by virtue of Section 6 of the Courts Act to entertain the plaint.  One of the maxims or principles of equity developed by the English Court of Chancery to administer equity jurisdiction is, “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”.  On the facts of the instant case, this offers the Plaintiff with no prospect of success.  The Plaintiff cannot be said to have clean hands in the instant case because by his own admission, he married whilst still married to another.  The Plaintiff’s explanation that he was intoxicated, and therefore was unaware that he was contracting into marriage, can hardly absolve him from the wrong doing and bequeath him with clean hands because there is an administrative process which one has to adhere to before getting married, and therefore, he must have gone through the process.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[49]     I also take into account what the declaratory Judgment would entail in reliance on Family Law Professor Leong Wai Kum’s (in the High Court’s Inherent Power to Grant Declarations of Marital Status” 1991 Singapore Journal of Legal Studies PP13-54) explanation as to the distinction between a declaratory Judgment and an executory Judgment.  He explains, that a declaratory Judgment does not order one party to act or not to act in a certain way against the other party.  Rather, it seeks to only “proclaim the existence of a legal relationship between the parties or the legal status of one of the parties”.  Professor Leong Wai Kum further writes, that because this type of Judgment is non-conceive, it does not mean it is of little use.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[50]     If I am to put in context Professor Leon Wai Kum’s view of a declaratory judgment, clearly, in the instant case, the Plaintiff is merely seeking for an Order which simply declares the non-existence of a legal relationship between him and the defendant.  I cannot, therefore, comprehend how this would disadvantage the defendant or curtain her from taking any further action against the Plaintiff should the need arise.  However, this Court will cross the bridge when it gets to it.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[51]     Within the background of the elaboration and discussion of the law in the preceding paragraphs herein, I hold the view, that this Court does have an inherent jurisdiction to determine this application, and that it can exercise its inherent jurisdiction emanating from its unlimited jurisdiction to ensure convenience and fairness on both parties, particularly so, given that they both do not meet the statutory requirement as to domicile under the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, to annul their marriage.  However, I say so with caution considering the opinion of Dingake JA in Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd vs. Eastern European Engineering Limited SCA MA21/2020 [2020] SCCA (13 November 2020) that inherent jurisdiction cannot “ circumvent legislation that confers jurisdiction on a Court”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[52]     In the final analysis, and for the purposes of this ruling, this Court rules, that it does have the necessary jurisdiction to make the declaratory judgment being sought for by exercising its inherent jurisdiction that emanates from its unlimited jurisdiction.  As such, no referral to the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 46 (7) of the Constitution for a determination as to whether the provisions of Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act contravenes or is likely to contravene the Charter under the Constitution is made.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 29<sup>th</sup> July 2022.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">____________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">B. Adeline</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judge of the Supreme Court</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-f2e9b85a759288305e05e251f938e542336c7e21fbffaf428c75b0ea287fdc7a"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>B. Adeline, J</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[1]       This is a plaint filed in Court by one Michal, Tomasz, Nowacki (“the plaintiff”), who elects his legal domicile in the Law Chambers of Mr. Frank Elizabeth, Attorney-at-Law against one Katavzyna, Anna Dabrowska (“the defendant”), whose address is unknown.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]       In the plaint, as part of the pleadings, <i>interalia</i>, the following averments are made;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.0in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        1. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were lawfully married on the 07<sup>th</sup> May 2020, at Anse Kerlan, Praslin, Seychelles.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    2. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are of Polish nationality and at the time of their marriage they were residents of Anse Kerlan, Praslin.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    3. At the time of the said marriage, the Plaintiff was a businessman and a married man, the Defendant a manager and a spinster.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    4. There are no children born out of the said marriage.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    5. After the said marriage, the parties lived and cohabited temporarily at Anse Kerlan, Praslin, and</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    6. The plaintiff avers that the marriage should be declared unlawful, null and void ab initio for the following reasons:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-1.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    (a) at the time of the marriage, the plaintiff was already married to another person, and the marriage had not yet been dissolved.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]       The Plaintiff prays this Court for the following relief;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (i) A declaratory Judgment declaring the marriage unlawful and void ab initio.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>BACKGROUND</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]       This Court has taken judicial notice of previous proceedings involving the same parties by which the Plaintiff, (“previously the Petitioner”) had petitioned this Court for an Order of nullity of marriage under the provisions of Section 238 (1) (c) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, 2020 (“the code”) which was subsequently withdrawn.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]       Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff (the Petitioner then), withdrew the petition for the reason that the plaintiff could not satisfied the statutory requirement laid down by virtue of Section 229 (1) of the Code, that requires a party to a marriage, at the date when proceedings are commenced, <u>to be domiciled in Seychelles</u>, the effect of which, would have enabled this Court to seised jurisdiction to determine the petition and make a determination thereupon.  (Underlined emphasis is mine).</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[6]       As part of my thoughts over the relief being sought by the plaintiff, as well as over whether this Court is a Court of competent jurisdiction to grant the relief being sought, I have first and foremost, reminded myself of an extract in the case of Nyaro v Zading (YL 124 of 2015) [2016] NGCA No (28<sup>th</sup> July 2016) which I came across recently and which are pertinent to my approach in this case.  In that case, the Court stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“It is for this reason that the issue of competence, that is jurisdiction, can even be raised suo motu by the Court to ensure that matters before it are competent in order that the Court does not end up acting in vain and nullity if it turns out in the end that it indeed lacks the requisite competence to have heard and determine the cause, matter or action on appeal before it”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]       This pronouncement, is consistent with the views expressed by Dingake, JA in Vijay Construction Pty Ltd v Eastern European Engineering Limited SCA MA21/2022, who in his concurring Judgment, referred to a passage in the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “ Lilian S” vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR before the Court of Appeal in Kenya, when the Court had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“The question of jurisdiction ought to be raised at the earliest opportunity and the Court seised of the matter is then obliged to decide the issue right away on the material before it.  Jurisdiction is everything.  Without it, a Court has no power to make one or more step.  Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.  A Court of law downs tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]       It is in order to clear any possible doubts over whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaint for a declaratory Judgment, that in the light of the extracts from the case law authorities specified in the preceding paragraphs, that suo motu, the Court raised the issue of jurisdiction, and called upon learned Counsel for the Plaintiff to address it on the issue of whether this Court is a Court of competent jurisdiction to hear the plaint, and indeed, grant the relief being sought.  For that, learned Counsel opted to provide the Court with a written submission.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]       In his submission, learned Counsel began, by providing the Court with a definition of jurisdiction taken from the Halsbury’s laws of England that reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>jurisdiction is the authority which of course has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision to stop the limits of this authorities are imposed by statute, charter or commission under which the Court is constituted.  If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]     Learned Counsel also found it necessary, to quote a passage from a ruling of the Court of Appeal in Vijay Construction Pty Limited vs. Eastern European Engineering Limited, MA 24/2020 arising in SCA 28/2020, that reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>The primary source of jurisdiction of a Court is found in the Constitution or Statute constituting that Court and investing it with authority to decide matters.  That authority may be unlimited or limited.  <u>Numerous texts and authorities have suggested that any Courts of unlimited original jurisdiction possess inherent jurisdiction</u>.”</i>  Underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]     This considered view, is one that emanates from different case law authorities, including the case of R vs. Forbes, exparte Bevan 1972 HCA 34, quoted by learned Counsel.  In that case, the Court had stated the following:</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        “<i>Courts of unlimited jurisdiction have inherent jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]     Relying on these case law authorities, learned Counsel submitted, that this Court is a Court of unlimited jurisdiction, which as such, it has an inherent jurisdiction to grant the relief being sought in this instant case.  Learned Counsel argued, that such inherent jurisdiction has evolved from the English common law, and that the High Court inherent jurisdiction has developed over the years.  The case of Privatbaken vs. Aktieselskab Privatbanken [1978] SLR 226 was quoted, in which case, Sauzier J traced back the history of the creation of the Supreme Court in 1903, and confirmed, that in 1903, the Supreme Court of Seychelles became a Court of unlimited jurisdiction and given all the powers, privileges authority and jurisdiction of the High Court of justice in England.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]     This, as per learned Counsel’s submission, with the enactment of the Court’s Act, statutory provisions have been introduced, notably, by virtue of Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9 and Section 10 of the Court’s Act vesting into the Supreme Court different jurisdiction.  Learned Counsel made specific mention of Section 4 of the Court's Act, which expressly provides, <i>interalia</i>, that the Supreme Court “shall have and may exercise the powers, authorities and jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the High Court of justice in England, and Section 5 of the Court’s Act, which <i>interalia</i>, provides, that the Supreme Court shall have, and is hereby invested with, all the powers, privileges, authority and jurisdiction which is vested in, or capable of being exercised by the High Court of Justice in England”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]     In essence, therefore, the crux of learned Counsel’s submission on the issue of jurisdiction, is that, as a matter of procedural law, the Supreme Court does possess the necessary jurisdiction to grant the declaratory Order being sought for by the Plaintiff.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]     It is appropriate, at this juncture, for a consensus as to what the term jurisdiction means in the sphere of procedural law.  In an article in the Canterbury Law Review 10, (2005) II Canterbury Law Review 220, the author, one Joseph Rosara, gives a simple definition of jurisdiction by defining jurisdiction as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision</i>”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]     Rosara went on as to state, that jurisdiction is a substantive power to hear and determine a matter, and that it may be conferred by the statute under which the Court is constituted.  He calls this “statutory jurisdiction”.  According to him, such jurisdiction may be inherent in a particular Court, which is called inherent jurisdiction.  Rosara also argues, that one must distinguish between jurisdiction and power as he stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“All Courts possesses inherent powers which are incidental or ancillary to their substantive jurisdiction.  These ancillary powers are procedural rather than substantive in nature.  They enable the Court to give effect to its jurisdiction by enabling the Court to regulate its procedure and protect its proceedings”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]     The question that becomes relevant in the instant discussion, is, therefore, where does the Court’s jurisdiction derives?  In Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd vs. Eastern European Engineering Ltd MA No 24/2020 (arising in SCA 28/2020) [2022] SCCA 5 (21 March 2022) Robinson J A had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“34. The primary source of the jurisdiction of the Court is found in the Constitution or Statute constituting that Court and investing it with authority to decide matters. That authority maybe be unlimited or limited.  Numerous texts and authorities have suggested, that only Courts of unlimited original jurisdiction possess inherent jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]     As Judges, we often use the term “inherent jurisdiction”, when we feel that its use is necessary as a useful adjunct of one Court’s jurisdiction.  Inherent jurisdiction is a creature of the English common law.  Sir Jack Jacob has come up with a definition of inherent jurisdiction, which over the years, has been adopted in many common law jurisdiction, notably New Zealand, Canada and United Kingdom.  He defines inherent jurisdiction as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“residual source of powers, which the Court may draw upon as necessary, whenever it is just or equitable to do so, in particular, to ensure the observance of due process of the law to prevent vexation or oppression, to do justice between parties and to secure a fair trial between them”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]     The vexed questions that are for consideration at this juncture, are;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(i) is inherent jurisdiction different from common law jurisdiction, and if so, what are the differences?, And</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(ii) is it necessary to retain inherent jurisdiction or common law jurisdiction, or indeed both, in order to ensure the proper and effective functioning of the Courts?</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">In exparte Millsite Investments Co (Pty) Ltd 1965 (2) SA 582 (T) at 585 – G-H, the Court had this to say about the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“apart from the powers specifically conferred by statutory enactment and subject to any deprivations of power by the same source, a Supreme Court can entertain a claim or give an Order which, at common law, it would be entitled to entertain or give.  It is to that reservoir of power that references is made where in various judgments, Courts have spoken of the inherent power of the Supreme Court.  <u>The inherent power is not merely one derived from the need to make the Court’s Order effective, and to control its own procedure, but to hold the scales of justice where no specific law provides directly for a given situation.</u></i>  Underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]     Pollak on jurisdiction (1993) makes the following comment, amongst others;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“In short, therefore, the position is that unlike, say the Magistrate’s Court or the industrial Court, the power of the Supreme Court is not spelled out in a legislative framework and limited by its creating statute, it inherently has all such power as entitles it to entertain, to hear all causes arising within the area over which it exercises jurisdiction”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]     Pollak then proceeded to give examples of the exercise by the Supreme Court of its inherent jurisdiction;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (i) to regulate their own proceedings.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (ii) to control their own officers.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (iii) to prevent abuse of their process.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        (iv) to maintain their dignity.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            (v) to ensure that substantial justice is not denied by a strict adherence to procedural rules.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">As a point of caution, Pollak did emphasise, that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to create substantive law.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]     The effect of the exercise by the Supreme Court of its inherent jurisdiction, has been pronounced upon by Twomey, Justice of Appeal, who stated in Bristol v. Rosenbauer (SCA MA28/2021 [Arising in SCA 71/2018] (out of CS118/2012) [2022] SCCA 23 (29 April 2022), that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“ When a Court is called to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, so that it can properly regulate its own proceedings, it is essentially called to exercise a function that it already has or has already been clothed with, or to exercise a power in order to allow its orders to be effective.”</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[23]     In Pollak’s view, the term common law jurisdiction is used in the context of the common law which is a source of jurisdiction, which in effect, means that the Courts define their own jurisdiction given that they are the final Judges of what the common law is.  Clearly, therefore, the answers to the above questions, should all be in the affirmative.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[24]     Inherent jurisdiction is non-Constitutional or non-statutory jurisdiction which the Courts employ in a range of circumstances.  The Courts can use its inherent jurisdiction wherever and whenever it is just and necessary.  One of the fundamental features of inherent jurisdiction, is that it is exercised as part of the administration of justice and in relation to the process of litigation.  It is, therefore, procedural not substantive.  As correctly stated by Robinson JA in Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd (Supra) in this country, our Courts owe their existence not only by statutes but also the Constitution.  History shows, that the entirety of the English Superior Court’s jurisdiction was inherent, in that, it had no statutory or Constitutional basis, and that the enactment of statutes slowly started to codify the majority of that jurisdiction.  In essence, the powers and jurisdiction of the Court that remains uncodified or unregulated, overruled by statute, is the residual powers that has become known as inherent jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[25]     In Liang’s view, inherent jurisdiction indicates some sort of substantive authority based on the original and unlimited  jurisdiction superior Courts received from the sovereign.  This he says, is different from inherent powers which were instead a type of procedural authority incidental to a Court’s statutory authority.  In Adrian de Lange vs. Catherine Cillers (MA22/202) (Arising in DC137/2020), when addressing the nature and scope of inherent jurisdiction, I expressed my firm belief, that inherent jurisdiction “facilitate the Courts in exercising full judicial power in all matters concerning the general administration of justice, and is part of procedural law.  I stated, that it is a “default power” that operates where there is no express power, and that you invoke it to ensure convenience and fairness”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[26]     The case of Auton Piller KG vs Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] (55 (CA) is an example where the concept of inherent jurisdiction has been used (in the English Court).  This case established the jurisdiction to grant an exparte order to a party to enter, search and remove property from the premises for its opponent in civil litigation when it is likely that the opponent was going to destroy legal evidence.  The Court of Appeal admitted, that there was little precedent, statutory or common law, to warrant such an Order, but that it was necessary so as to do justice between the parties, and therefore, justified through the invocation of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[27]     In other jurisdiction, notably Singapore, the inherent jurisdiction of the Court is recognised by rules of Courts, and is termed as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in these rules shall be decreased to limit or affect the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make any Order as may be necessary to prevent injustice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[28]     In UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine &amp; Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pty Ltd and Others, the Court had to consider whether the Court’s inherent jurisdiction extended “to the making of Orders against persons who are not parties to this action, requiring them to furnish hand writing samples”.  The Court held, that it had jurisdiction to make an Order for discovery under the rules of Court.  In the alternative, however, the Court went on to consider whether it could invoke its inherent jurisdiction to grant the Order.  It noted, “that rules of Court acknowledging the existence of inherent powers did not give the Court unlimited powers, and instead, the touch stone for the exercise of inherent jurisdiction was a necessity, whatever needed to be done to secure justice between the parties and avoid abuses of Court’s processes”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[29]     In Wee Soon Kim Anthony vs Law Society of Singapore [2011] 4, SLR 25 (SGCA) [26] the Court elaborated some principles which included the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“The Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction not only to avoid “injustice”, but also, to avoid “serious hardship or difficulty or danger ………” (as in the instant case).  Under current in this principle is the acceptance of the theoretically unlimited inherent jurisdiction.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[30]     The inherent jurisdiction of the high Court in New Zealand was examined by the Supreme Court in New Zealand in Mafart v Television New Zealand Ltd, when Elias, CJ stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“except to the extent modified by statute and rules, the Court continue to have inherent jurisdiction and powers to determine its own procedure.  The inherent jurisdiction is not ousted by the adoption of rules, but is regulated by the rules so far as they are extended.  To the extent that the rules do not cover a situation, the inherent jurisdiction supplies the deficiency”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[31]     In the context of the discussion so far in the preceding paragraphs, can it be said, convincingly, that learned Counsel’s proposition, coupled with his arguments in support thereof, that this Court does have an inherent jurisdiction to decide certain matters, and that it can make use of such jurisdiction to grant the declaratory Judgment being sought.  In other words, am I persuaded by his arguments, or I am not persuaded because his arguments do not hold water.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[32]     Learned Counsel’s arguments, stem from the premise, that the Supreme Court of Seychelles has an unlimited jurisdiction which emanates from Article 125 of the Constitution as well as Section 5 of the Courts Act.  For ease of reference, Article 125 of the Constitution reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“125 (1) There shall be a Supreme Court which shall, in addition to the jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Constitution, have;</i></span></span></span></span></p> <ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Original jurisdiction in matters relating to the application, contravention, enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Original jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate Courts, tribunals and adjudicating authority and, in this connection, shall have power to issue injunctions, directions, orders or writs including writs or orders in the nature of habeas Corpus, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition and quo warrant to as may be appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory jurisdiction, and</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:80px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Such other original, appellate and other jurisdiction as maybe conferred on it by or under an Act”.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[33]     Section 5 of the Courts Act, reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“5. The Supreme Court shall continue to have, and is hereby invested with full original jurisdiction to hear and determine all suits, actions, causes and matters under all laws for the time being in force in Seychelles relating to wills and execution of Wills, interdiction or appointment of a curator, guardianship of minors, adoption, insolvency, bankruptcy matrimonial causes and generally to hear and determine all civil suits, actions, causes matters that may be brought or may be pending before it, whatever may be the nature of such suits, actions, causes or matters, and in <u>exercising such jurisdiction, the Supreme Court shall have, and is hereby invested with, all the powers, privileged, authority, and jurisdiction which is vested in, or capable of being exercised by the High Court of justice in England.</u>  </i>Underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[34]     For the purposes of this ruling, it is also worth noting Section 6 of the Court’s Act, that reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>6. The Supreme Court shall continue to be a Court of equity and is a hereby invested with powers, authority and jurisdiction to administer justice and to do all acts for the due execution of such equitable jurisdiction in all cases where no sufficient legal remedy is provided by the laws of Seychelles”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[35]     By reference to Article 125 of the Constitution, and Section 5 of the Court’s Act, learned Counsel argued, correctly and convincingly, that the Supreme Court has an unlimited jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution and statutes.  His argument is supported by, and is accorded by Sauzier J’s passage in the case of Privatbanken v Aktieselskab when he stated, <i>interalia</i>, that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“In 1903 the Supreme Court of Seychelles became a Court of unlimited jurisdiction.”</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[36]     In his written submission, learned Counsel also argues, that he has resorted to invoking the Court’s inherent jurisdiction for the making of a declaratory order by way of entering a plaint in Court, because his client has no legal remedy under the provisions of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, albeit the fact, that the Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction by virtue of Article 125 of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Courts Act.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[37]     As correctly submitted by learned Counsel, this is because the jurisdiction of this Court is limited by virtue of the expressed provisions of Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, to the extent that by virtue of Section 229 (1) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, a party to the marriage has to be domiciled in Seychelles at the date when proceedings are commenced, where the order being sought is for nullity of marriage under Section 238 (I) (c) read with Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020.  In the instant case, both of the parties are not domiciled in Seychelles.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[38]     It is the contention of learned Counsel, that Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act “is a stand along provision”, and as such, in order to do away with the requirement that either of the parties has to be domiciled in Seychelles, the seeking of a declaration that the marriage was unlawful, null and void ab initio should be entertained by the Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[39]     It is also the contention of learned Counsel, that the Court should make such a declaration, given that a marriage is a contract between two persons, and that, that is further emphasised by the use of the word “contracted” in various provisions under the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, notably, in Section 146, and that there are statutory obligations imposed on the parties to the marriage under Sections 201 and 203 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, for example.  Learned Counsel contends, making specific reference to “the Online Legal Information Institute”, that the English Common Law tradition, has long recognised marriage between a man and a woman as a legal contract with obligations on the parties, and that, such concept still remains relevant although the obligations have changed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[40]     To further strengthen his argument for the making of the declaratory Judgment being sought for on account of the substantive law of contract, learned Counsel drew this Court’s attention to Section 1131 (1) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020, which provides, that “a contract that is unlawful has no legal effect”, and Section 1131 (2) which reads that “a contract is unlawful if its performance is prohibited by legislation, or is against public policy”.  In this regards, learned Counsel contended, that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is against Public Policy because the former was a married man when he contracted marriage with the latter.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[41]     In fact, the proposition that the Court will not enforce an agreement which is against public policy is backed up by several case law authorities in this jurisdiction, notably Bernard Monty vs. Alex Buron, and NSJ Construction (Pty) Ltd and Anor v F.B Choppy (Pty) Ltd (SCA160 of 2019) Appeal from CS27 of 2010, and 53 of 7 September 2021.  In reliance on these case law authorities, it is submitted by learned Counsel, that the contract of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in the instance case, is not only against public policy because the plaintiff was already married when he contracted marriage with the Defendant, but also, because it is against the provision of Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[42]     As regards to learned Counsel’s proposition that a marriage in this country is a contract between a man and a woman, and that this is borne out, also, because of the frequent use of the word “contracted” under different provisions of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, such as, for example, under Section 146 of the Code, as much as the correctness of his submission on the substantive law of contract offers very little room for disagreement, it is my considered opinion, that the law of contract cannot be the legal substantive law basis to determine whether or not to grant the relief being sought for.  This is because to do so will be a clear manoeuvre to circumvent the provisions of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act.  I say so, because under Section 228 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, given that this is effectively a proceeding for nullity of marriage, it is a “matrimonial cause” governed by specific rules and statutory provisions under the code.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[43]     With emphasis on this contention, that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a contract against public policy because the plaintiff was already married when he contracted marriage, learned Counsel opined, that the law as it presently stands under the provisions of Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act is discriminatory given that it doesn’t afford foreigners who are not domiciled in Seychelles equal protection, and is, therefore, in consistent with Article 27 of the Constitution that gives every person a right to equal protection of the law including the enjoyment of the rights and freedom set out in the charter without discrimination on any ground except as is necessary in a democratic society.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[44]     However, learned Counsel has only moved this Court to refer this matter to the Constitutional Court under Article 46 (7) of the Constitution for a determination as to whether Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act is inconsistent with, and contravenes Article 27 of the Constitution, only if, the Court determines, that it has no jurisdiction to make a declaratory Judgment declaring the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant unlawful null, and void ab initio because it offends Section 146 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[45]     At this juncture, the question of whether a declaratory Judgment is an equitable or a statutory remedy is worthy of a discussion.  Historically, a declaratory Judgment has been regarded as a discretroriary remedy, although arguably, as early as the 19<sup>th</sup> Century Farwell LJ in Chapman vs Michaelson CA [1909] 1 CH 238, 243 took the view that it was not strictly an equitable relief.  In an Article published in the Canada Bar Review, Volume No 8, in October 1931, one Paul Martin had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“As in England, the granting of a declaratory decree lies within the Court’s discretion, and in the instances which tends to indicate the direction in which the discretion is usually exercised, seem to depend primarily upon the apparent utility and convenience in consequence of the declaration”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[46]     The author of the Article went on as to add that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“The question of utility looks at the result of the declaratory form of Judgment.  The element of convenience is best observed in the procedure, it being considered that the determination of rights can often be more conveniently ascertained by this method”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">It appears, that historically Courts in Scotland, Canada and England for example, have followed the practice of not granting a declaratory Judgment where some other known remedy exists.  In Scotland for example, it is well documented, that Scotch Courts have historically made declarations regarding the validity of marriage (see Fazer, Husband and Wife 2<sup>nd</sup> ED. 1238, 1244).</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[47]     In other jurisdiction, such as in the United States, for example, a declaratory Judgment is considered to be a statutory remedy.  It appears, therefore, that in the absence of statutes (legislation) providing for a declaratory Judgment as a statutory remedy, we can conveniently subscribe to the view, that a declaratory Judgment is an equitable / discretionary remedy.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [48]    As such, one may wonder, why is it that in the instant case, the Court would not exercise its equitable jurisdiction conferred upon it by virtue of Section 6 of the Courts Act to entertain the plaint.  One of the maxims or principles of equity developed by the English Court of Chancery to administer equity jurisdiction is, “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands”.  On the facts of the instant case, this offers the Plaintiff with no prospect of success.  The Plaintiff cannot be said to have clean hands in the instant case because by his own admission, he married whilst still married to another.  The Plaintiff’s explanation that he was intoxicated, and therefore was unaware that he was contracting into marriage, can hardly absolve him from the wrong doing and bequeath him with clean hands because there is an administrative process which one has to adhere to before getting married, and therefore, he must have gone through the process.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[49]     I also take into account what the declaratory Judgment would entail in reliance on Family Law Professor Leong Wai Kum’s (in the High Court’s Inherent Power to Grant Declarations of Marital Status” 1991 Singapore Journal of Legal Studies PP13-54) explanation as to the distinction between a declaratory Judgment and an executory Judgment.  He explains, that a declaratory Judgment does not order one party to act or not to act in a certain way against the other party.  Rather, it seeks to only “proclaim the existence of a legal relationship between the parties or the legal status of one of the parties”.  Professor Leong Wai Kum further writes, that because this type of Judgment is non-conceive, it does not mean it is of little use.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[50]     If I am to put in context Professor Leon Wai Kum’s view of a declaratory judgment, clearly, in the instant case, the Plaintiff is merely seeking for an Order which simply declares the non-existence of a legal relationship between him and the defendant.  I cannot, therefore, comprehend how this would disadvantage the defendant or curtain her from taking any further action against the Plaintiff should the need arise.  However, this Court will cross the bridge when it gets to it.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[51]     Within the background of the elaboration and discussion of the law in the preceding paragraphs herein, I hold the view, that this Court does have an inherent jurisdiction to determine this application, and that it can exercise its inherent jurisdiction emanating from its unlimited jurisdiction to ensure convenience and fairness on both parties, particularly so, given that they both do not meet the statutory requirement as to domicile under the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, to annul their marriage.  However, I say so with caution considering the opinion of Dingake JA in Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd vs. Eastern European Engineering Limited SCA MA21/2020 [2020] SCCA (13 November 2020) that inherent jurisdiction cannot “ circumvent legislation that confers jurisdiction on a Court”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[52]     In the final analysis, and for the purposes of this ruling, this Court rules, that it does have the necessary jurisdiction to make the declaratory judgment being sought for by exercising its inherent jurisdiction that emanates from its unlimited jurisdiction.  As such, no referral to the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 46 (7) of the Constitution for a determination as to whether the provisions of Section 229 (2) (b) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act contravenes or is likely to contravene the Charter under the Constitution is made.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 29<sup>th</sup> July 2022.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">____________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">B. Adeline</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judge of the Supreme Court</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 29 Nov 2022 05:35:17 +0000 Fabianna Savy 5486 at http://seylii.org Beau Vallon Properties Limited v Bhasin (Civil Appeal Side 27 of 2022) [2022] SCCA 59 (28 October 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/court-appeal/2022/59 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Beau Vallon Properties Limited v Bhasin (Civil Appeal Side 27 of 2022) [2022] SCCA 59 (28 October 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Mithila Mudalige</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Mon, 11/07/2022 - 05:21</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p>Amendment of affidavit and Motion to stay execution</p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p>The motion is dismissed in it's entirety with costs in favor of the Respondent </p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scca/2022/59/2022-scca-59.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=28208">2022-scca-59.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scca/2022/59/2022-scca-59.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=682633">2022-scca-59.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal;tab-stops:204.6pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:204.6pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES<p></p></span></b></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal;tab-stops:204.6pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><u><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Reportable<p></p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[2022] SCCA 59 (28 October 2022)<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">SCA MA 27/2022<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(Arising in SCA MA 18/2022)<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">In the matter Between<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:279.0pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Beau Vallon Properties Limited,<span style="mso-tab-count:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;3">                                                    </span>Applicant<p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(rep. by Mr. Serge Rouillon)</span></i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-tab-count:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;5">                                                            </span><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">And<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Rahul Bhasin,<span style="mso-tab-count:3">                                                                                    </span>Respondent<p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(rep. by Mrs. Alexia Amesbury)<p></p></span></i></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Neutral Citation:</span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Beau Vallon Properties Limited v Bhasin </i>(SCA MA 27/2022) [2022] <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">                                </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">SCCA 59 (Arising in SCA MA 18/2022) (28 October 2022)<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Before: <span style="mso-tab-count:1">                  </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Andre JA<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Summary: <span style="mso-tab-count:1">            </span>A</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;Calibri;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">mendment of affidavit and Motion to stay execution <p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-94.5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Heard:<span style="mso-tab-count:1">                   </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">20 September 2022 <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Delivered:<span style="mso-tab-count:1">              </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">28 October 2022<p></p></span></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:none;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><br /><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">ORDER</span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">S<p></p></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">The Court makes the following Orders:<p></p></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;-.5in;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(i)<span style="mso-tab-count:1">        </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">The Motion is dismissed. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">(ii)<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>Costs is awarded in favour of the Respondent.<p></p></span></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:none;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><br /><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">RULING<p></p></span></b></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">ANDRE, JA<p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;107%" xml:lang="EN-GB">INTRODUCTION</span></strong><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></b></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[1]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">This Ruling arises out of the Notice of Motion filed on 2 June 2022 by Beau Vallon Properties Limited Trading, as Coral Strand Hotel (the Applicant), against Rahul Bhasin (the Respondent). The Notice of Motion seeks an Order for leave to amend the Motion for a Stay of Execution and the attached affidavit in support of the application in MA18 of 2022 arising out of case ET/61/17; CA 11/2018 delivered by the Supreme Court dated the 2 March 2022. The said Stay of Execution is sought pending the hearing and disposal of the Applicant’s Appeal against the Supreme Court judgement. <p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[2]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">An Affidavit in support of one Mr Aleksander Khlebnikov director of the Applicant is attached in support of the Application. </span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[3]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">The Respondent objects to the application by way of filed submissions objecting to the same dated the 20 September 2022.<p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">APPLICANT’S GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION</span></strong><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-weight:normal" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></strong></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[4]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">The reasons advanced by the Applicant in support of the above-said Motion are found at paragraph 12 of the Affidavit in Support (supra), where it is averred that:<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">“During the hearing of the application referred to in Paragraph 11 her Ladyship S. Andre JA pointed out some issues in the Application and accompanying Affidavit which needed to be attended before the Application could proceed which included making amendments to both the Motion and Affidavit in support.”<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[5]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>This is in reference to when this Court pointed out to Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Serge Rouillon, that there is a lacuna in the Affidavit in support. Below is the record of proceedings dated 24 May 2022 at 9.00am, pages 2 – 3:<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">“Court: O.K. So, we will not go into the merits of the application as at now. Just to also point your attention that there is a deficiency, a lacuna in the Affidavit, paragraph 6, as read with your prayer (b). Again, the Court is in issue. Which Court is in issue, as far as the impugned decision is concerned and the current application before this Court? O.K? These are really important issues that have to be dealt with, as prelims.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: We have attached the copy Judgment, your Ladyship.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Court: Yes, paragraph 6 you made reference: “That following the remittance of the case to this court for a judgment on the facts the court, on 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2022 in CA 11 of 2018”, this is erroneous.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: Yes.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Court: It is grossly erroneous and I cannot allow amendment to an Affidavit, by you.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: No, but there are authorities from Africa, which basically, and which had been adopted in the Constitutional Court, your Ladyship, for correcting errors which are not fundamental.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Court: But this error is really fundamental, Mr. Rouillon, if you remember the last Ruling delivered in the case of Desouza, before the Supreme Court. I remember it very vividly in my mind. It was an Affidavit that your client had filed and I remember going through a lot of precedent, jut to try and differentiate what is fatal and what is not fatal. So, just bringing this to your attention, because this is really substantial when I look at the Affidavit. O.K? The Motion is something different, the Notice of Motion, but as for the Affidavit itself, this is something which has to be brought to your attention as a friend of the Court, in fact. O.K? So, you are moving as per your current Motion and Affidavit?<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: Yes, your Ladyship.”</span></i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[6]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>It is erroneous for the Applicant, through its affidavit in support during these proceedings, to present as though this Court advised that amending of the Motion and Affidavit was necessary. The Court simply put it to Counsel’s attention that there are fundamental errors in the Affidavit. The Court also expressly said amendment to an affidavit will not be allowed. In the circumstances, Counsel is expected to apply themselves and act accordingly.<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION</span></strong><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-weight:normal" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[7]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>The Respondent objects to the present application for leave to amend an affidavit, stating that it is trite law that an affidavit cannot be amended by virtue of it being a sworn testimony. It is the submission of the Respondent that it is improper to ask the Court to amend a testimony before it. As such, the remedy available is to seek leave to file a supplementary affidavit. <p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">THE LAW </span></strong><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[8]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>Indeed, there must be serious concerns if an affidavit can be amended in view of it being a sworn testimony. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[9]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>Case law has been instructive on the appropriate approach on the question of whether or not an affidavit can be amended. In in the Kenyan case of <b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal">Swaleh Gheithan Saanun v Commissioner of Lands &amp; 5 others </i>[2002] eKLR</b>, Onyancha J<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"> </i></b>at page 2 held that: ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">the more substantive parts of an affidavit cannot be amended, while minor changes to title may be acceptable given that they do not offend the substance of the oath given’.</i> In the cases of <b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Phantom Modern Transport [1985] Limited vs. D.T. Dobie ((Tanzania) Limited </i>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal">Dwarka Natha vs. Income Tax Officer Air </i>1966 SC81,</b> it was held that an affidavit can only be cured by filing of a fresh one with the correct averments or one which complies with the law. These two cases were relied on by Adeline J in <b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Joubert v Joubert (MA 105 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 465 (02 June 2022)</i></b> whereby his Lordship concluded that affidavits cannot be amended. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[10]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">     </span>In the present case, there are fundamental errors of substance in the Affidavit in Support. The option Counsel for the Applicant has is to cure such errors by, as submitted too by Counsel for the Respondent and on the reliance of previously cited cases, filling a supplementary affidavit.<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[11]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">     </span>In terms of amending a Motion to Stay Execution, Counsel for the Applicant has not assisted the Court with the legal provision relied on which allows for a motion to amend another motion. I thus dismiss this Motion outright. If the motion is found lacking such should be withdrawn and a fresh one is filed. It is beyond this Court’s power to re-invent the law in this instance too.<p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:none"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">DECISION </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[12]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">     </span>It follows thus for reasons given, the Motion is dismissed in its entirety with costs in favour of the Respondent. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">_______________</span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-no-proof:yes" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">S. Andre, JA<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><a name="_Toc409448291" id="_Toc409448291"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Signed, dated, and delivered at Ile du Port on 28<sup>th</sup> October 2022. </span></a><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-law-report-citations field--type-string field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Law report citations</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item">Joubert v Joubert (MA 105 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 465 (02 June 2022) </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-b929c8e6c27b32a3e4ee8d5d522b8b751e7cacc0548f5f5133ee7414d97000e7"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal;tab-stops:204.6pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:204.6pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF SEYCHELLES<p></p></span></b></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal;tab-stops:204.6pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><u><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Reportable<p></p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[2022] SCCA 59 (28 October 2022)<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">SCA MA 27/2022<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:279.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(Arising in SCA MA 18/2022)<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">In the matter Between<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:279.0pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Beau Vallon Properties Limited,<span style="mso-tab-count:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;3">                                                    </span>Applicant<p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(rep. by Mr. Serge Rouillon)</span></i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-tab-count:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;5">                                                            </span><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">And<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt 279.0pt"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Rahul Bhasin,<span style="mso-tab-count:3">                                                                                    </span>Respondent<p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 204.6pt"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(rep. by Mrs. Alexia Amesbury)<p></p></span></i></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;tab-stops:27.0pt 279.0pt;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Neutral Citation:</span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Beau Vallon Properties Limited v Bhasin </i>(SCA MA 27/2022) [2022] <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">                                </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">SCCA 59 (Arising in SCA MA 18/2022) (28 October 2022)<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Before: <span style="mso-tab-count:1">                  </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Andre JA<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%;tab-stops:94.5pt"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Summary: <span style="mso-tab-count:1">            </span>A</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;Calibri;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">mendment of affidavit and Motion to stay execution <p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-94.5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Heard:<span style="mso-tab-count:1">                   </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">20 September 2022 <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;margin-left:94.5pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-94.5pt;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Delivered:<span style="mso-tab-count:1">              </span></span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">28 October 2022<p></p></span></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:none;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><br /><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">ORDER</span></b><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">S<p></p></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">The Court makes the following Orders:<p></p></span></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:10.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;-.5in;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">(i)<span style="mso-tab-count:1">        </span></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">The Motion is dismissed. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB">(ii)<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>Costs is awarded in favour of the Respondent.<p></p></span></p> <div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.0pt;border-right:none;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;padding:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><br /><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:center;line-height:normal;tab-stops:144.6pt;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;solid windowtext .5pt;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;padding:0in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-padding-alt:12.0pt 0in 0in 0in"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">RULING<p></p></span></b></p> </div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">ANDRE, JA<p></p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;107%" xml:lang="EN-GB">INTRODUCTION</span></strong><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:107%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></b></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[1]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">This Ruling arises out of the Notice of Motion filed on 2 June 2022 by Beau Vallon Properties Limited Trading, as Coral Strand Hotel (the Applicant), against Rahul Bhasin (the Respondent). The Notice of Motion seeks an Order for leave to amend the Motion for a Stay of Execution and the attached affidavit in support of the application in MA18 of 2022 arising out of case ET/61/17; CA 11/2018 delivered by the Supreme Court dated the 2 March 2022. The said Stay of Execution is sought pending the hearing and disposal of the Applicant’s Appeal against the Supreme Court judgement. <p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[2]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">An Affidavit in support of one Mr Aleksander Khlebnikov director of the Applicant is attached in support of the Application. </span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[3]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">The Respondent objects to the application by way of filed submissions objecting to the same dated the 20 September 2022.<p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">APPLICANT’S GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION</span></strong><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-weight:normal" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></strong></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:l0 level1 lfo3"> <!--[if !supportLists]--></p><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><span style="mso-list:Ignore">[4]<span style="font:7.0pt &quot;Times New Roman&quot;">            </span></span></span></p> <!--[endif]--><p><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">The reasons advanced by the Applicant in support of the above-said Motion are found at paragraph 12 of the Affidavit in Support (supra), where it is averred that:<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">“During the hearing of the application referred to in Paragraph 11 her Ladyship S. Andre JA pointed out some issues in the Application and accompanying Affidavit which needed to be attended before the Application could proceed which included making amendments to both the Motion and Affidavit in support.”<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[5]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>This is in reference to when this Court pointed out to Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Serge Rouillon, that there is a lacuna in the Affidavit in support. Below is the record of proceedings dated 24 May 2022 at 9.00am, pages 2 – 3:<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">“Court: O.K. So, we will not go into the merits of the application as at now. Just to also point your attention that there is a deficiency, a lacuna in the Affidavit, paragraph 6, as read with your prayer (b). Again, the Court is in issue. Which Court is in issue, as far as the impugned decision is concerned and the current application before this Court? O.K? These are really important issues that have to be dealt with, as prelims.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: We have attached the copy Judgment, your Ladyship.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Court: Yes, paragraph 6 you made reference: “That following the remittance of the case to this court for a judgment on the facts the court, on 2<sup>nd</sup> March 2022 in CA 11 of 2018”, this is erroneous.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: Yes.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Court: It is grossly erroneous and I cannot allow amendment to an Affidavit, by you.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: No, but there are authorities from Africa, which basically, and which had been adopted in the Constitutional Court, your Ladyship, for correcting errors which are not fundamental.<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Court: But this error is really fundamental, Mr. Rouillon, if you remember the last Ruling delivered in the case of Desouza, before the Supreme Court. I remember it very vividly in my mind. It was an Affidavit that your client had filed and I remember going through a lot of precedent, jut to try and differentiate what is fatal and what is not fatal. So, just bringing this to your attention, because this is really substantial when I look at the Affidavit. O.K? The Motion is something different, the Notice of Motion, but as for the Affidavit itself, this is something which has to be brought to your attention as a friend of the Court, in fact. O.K? So, you are moving as per your current Motion and Affidavit?<p></p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;auto;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></i></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:1.0in;mso-add-space:auto;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Mr. Rouillon: Yes, your Ladyship.”</span></i><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[6]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>It is erroneous for the Applicant, through its affidavit in support during these proceedings, to present as though this Court advised that amending of the Motion and Affidavit was necessary. The Court simply put it to Counsel’s attention that there are fundamental errors in the Affidavit. The Court also expressly said amendment to an affidavit will not be allowed. In the circumstances, Counsel is expected to apply themselves and act accordingly.<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-align:justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">RESPONDENTS’ OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION</span></strong><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-weight:normal" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[7]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>The Respondent objects to the present application for leave to amend an affidavit, stating that it is trite law that an affidavit cannot be amended by virtue of it being a sworn testimony. It is the submission of the Respondent that it is improper to ask the Court to amend a testimony before it. As such, the remedy available is to seek leave to file a supplementary affidavit. <p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;mso-list:none"><strong><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">THE LAW </span></strong><strong><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[8]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>Indeed, there must be serious concerns if an affidavit can be amended in view of it being a sworn testimony. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[9]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">       </span>Case law has been instructive on the appropriate approach on the question of whether or not an affidavit can be amended. In in the Kenyan case of <b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal">Swaleh Gheithan Saanun v Commissioner of Lands &amp; 5 others </i>[2002] eKLR</b>, Onyancha J<b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal"> </i></b>at page 2 held that: ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">the more substantive parts of an affidavit cannot be amended, while minor changes to title may be acceptable given that they do not offend the substance of the oath given’.</i> In the cases of <b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Phantom Modern Transport [1985] Limited vs. D.T. Dobie ((Tanzania) Limited </i>and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal">Dwarka Natha vs. Income Tax Officer Air </i>1966 SC81,</b> it was held that an affidavit can only be cured by filing of a fresh one with the correct averments or one which complies with the law. These two cases were relied on by Adeline J in <b><i style="mso-bidi-font-style:normal">Joubert v Joubert (MA 105 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 465 (02 June 2022)</i></b> whereby his Lordship concluded that affidavits cannot be amended. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[10]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">     </span>In the present case, there are fundamental errors of substance in the Affidavit in Support. The option Counsel for the Applicant has is to cure such errors by, as submitted too by Counsel for the Respondent and on the reliance of previously cited cases, filling a supplementary affidavit.<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraph"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-bidi-font-weight:bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[11]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">     </span>In terms of amending a Motion to Stay Execution, Counsel for the Applicant has not assisted the Court with the legal provision relied on which allows for a motion to amend another motion. I thus dismiss this Motion outright. If the motion is found lacking such should be withdrawn and a fresh one is filed. It is beyond this Court’s power to re-invent the law in this instance too.<p></p></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="mso-list:none"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;normal"><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB">DECISION </span></b><span lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-bidi-font-weight:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;bold" xml:lang="EN-ZA">[12]<span style="mso-tab-count:1">     </span>It follows thus for reasons given, the Motion is dismissed in its entirety with costs in favour of the Respondent. <p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">_______________</span><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA;mso-no-proof:yes" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">S. Andre, JA<p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;justify;line-height:150%"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;color:black;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><a name="_Toc409448291" id="_Toc409448291"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA">Signed, dated, and delivered at Ile du Port on 28<sup>th</sup> October 2022. </span></a><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;&lt;br /&gt;&#10;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p></p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;150%"><span lang="EN-ZA" style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:150%;font-family:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;;mso-ansi-language:&lt;br /&gt;&#10;EN-ZA" xml:lang="EN-ZA"><p> </p></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Mon, 07 Nov 2022 05:21:02 +0000 Mithila Mudalige 5453 at http://seylii.org Joubert v Joubert (MA 105 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 465 (02 June 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/465 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Joubert v Joubert (MA 105 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 465 (02 June 2022);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Franzisca Mitterer</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Tue, 08/02/2022 - 06:50</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p>Notice of Motion to amend affidavit</p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:144.6pt"><span style="font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Notice of Motion supported by an affidavit for leave to amend affidavit - The statutory requirements of Section 77 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure apply to statement of defence – A statement of defence is pleading – These requirements do not apply to affidavits which are sworn evidence – Affidavits have to comply with the rules of evidence to be made admissible – Documents to be used in combination with an affidavit must be exhibited and filed with it – An affidavit cannot be allowed to be amended at the behest of a witness – Amendment of an affidavit can only take the form of filing a fresh or additional affidavit – The motion is hereby dismissed.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/465/2022-scsc-465.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=4055401">2022-scsc-465.pdf</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/465/2022-scsc-465.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=25991">2022-scsc-465.docx</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This is a ruling on a notice of motion supported by an affidavit brought by one Karl Joubert of Cote D’Or, Praslin, Seychelles “the Applicant” (the Respondent in the main case) pursuant to Section 121 read with Section 122 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure, “the SCCP”, filed in Court on the 12<sup>th</sup> May 2022 as MA105/2022 (arising out of DC158/2020), praying this Court for leave to amend the supporting affidavit to the petition proper, in the manner formulated and shown in red ink.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]        “The Respondent”, (the Petitioner in the main case) opposed the motion but opted not to file an affidavit in reply, sanctioned by the Court in accordance with Section 125 of the SCCP.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]        The motion, with added emphasis by Learned Counsel for the Applicant / Respondent as underlined below, partly reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “For an Order that leave be granted <u>to amend the affidavit in reply and add the list of documents as per the amended reply attached herewith”.</u></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE BACKGROUND</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:0in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]        The background to this motion, is that, the Respondent / Petitioner had filed in Court by way of notice of motion supported by an affidavit, a claim for ancillary relief under Rule 4 (1) (f) and (i) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules after her conditional decree of divorce had been made absolute.  In the course of the hearing of the motion, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner objected to the production of certain documents as documentary evidence, contending, that under the provisions of the SCCP they are inadmissible, and cannot therefore be admitted in evidence.  Learned Counsel stated, that Section 77 of the SCCP requires, that the “list of the defendant’s documents” be listed to give advance notice to the Respondent / Petitioner for them to be rendered admissible.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE APPLICANT’S / RESPONDENT’S AFFIDAVIT</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]        In the supporting affidavit to the motion, the Applicant / Respondent makes, <i>interalia</i>, the following averments;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“2. <i>That I have been advised by my Counsel that in Order for me to produce certain documents which I will be relying on before the Court, I must list those in my affidavit in reply which was not done previously.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>3. I am now desirous of having those documents that I will rely on in the hearing listed in my affidavit in reply.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>4. the content and nature of my affidavit remains completely unchanged and therefore will in no way prejudice the Petitioner.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>5. that the case before the Court is still ongoing and I have not yet closed my case.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>6. that it is in the best interest of justice that the Court allows me to make this amendments”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]        In essence, by his motion, the Applicant / Respondent, contends, that the proposed amendment is necessary, given the evolution of new facts, and the fact that her client had omitted to list the documents he wishes to tender in evidence in his affidavit in reply to the Respondent’s / Petitioner’s petition.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION OPPOSING THE MOTION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]        Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner opposition to the motion, stems from his contention, that an affidavit is evidence and cannot, therefore, be amended.  Learned Counsel submitted, that the Applicant’s / Respondent’s affidavit in reply in respect of the main case, is evidence placed before the Court upon which the Court will make its determination of the issues in contention between the parties, and therefore, one cannot in law amend the evidence.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]        Learned Counsel stated, that in law one can amend a plaint or a defence because they are pleadings, but certainly not an affidavit.  He explained, that the proper way his learned friend could have dealt with the matter to achieve what she has sought to achieve, was to require her client to substitute his affidavit, or file a fresh additional affidavit in reply to the petition.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]      Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner also raised concerns about the impact of the motion on the speedy resolution of the case, contended, that the motion will cause further delay in concluding the case because the hearing has to be put to a halt for the Court to consider the motion.  Learned Counsel stated, that instead, Counsel for the Applicant / Respondent could have simply sent him a list of documents her clients intends to rely on because the documents are from a bank, not from the Applicant witness himself, or his learned friend could have filed a motion to require the Applicant / Respondent to provide the list of the documents he wishes to tender in evidence as exhibits to the Respondent / Petitioner.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]      Learned Counsel explained, that he is particularly uneased with the idea of an adjournment to consider the motion, when at this stage of the proceeding, the Applicant / Respondent was about to complete his examination in chief, and he was about to start cross examining him over his evidence.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]      In answer to learned Counsel’s submission opposing the motion, learned Counsel for the Applicant / Respondent, submitted, that the motion is not seeking to amend his client’s affidavit in reply to the petition in the main case in any shape or form, because he is not making any amendments to the content of the affidavit, but rather, to simply add the list of documents which are to be tendered in evidence as exhibits.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]      As to the proposition that an adjournment to consider the motion will further delay proceedings and the conclusion of the case, learned Counsel submitted, that the delay encountered so far, is attributed to the fact, that the parties in this case were attempting to reach a compromise in the form of a settlement which has failed.  Learned Counsel indicated, that her client is ready and willing to bear the cost of the adjournment should cost becomes an issue.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>QUESTIONS AT ISSUE</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]      For the purpose of this ruling, there are two questions at issue that should be made the subjects of discussion for a determination of the issues the Court is confronted with in this case, notably;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) Should the objection by learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner to the production of documentary evidence as exhibits by the Applicant / Respondent on the ground that the requirement of Section 77 of the SCCP has not been complied with, in that, the Applicant / Respondent has not annexed to his affidavit the list of documents he intends to tender in evidence at the hearing of the petition be sustained?, and</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) whether or not, the Applicant’s / Respondent’s motion for leave to amend his affidavit to annex therewith the list of documents he intends to tender as exhibits at the continuation of the hearing of the petition should succeed?</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:9.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE DISCUSSION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]      In my quest to find the correct answer to the first question, there is a need to make references to Section 77 of the SCCP, which statutory provision, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner has relied on and referred the Court to Section 77 is couched in the following terms;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>If the defendant intends to produce any documentary evidence, he shall annex a list thereof to his <u>statement of defence</u> and shall state where the same may be seen a reasonable time before the hearing.  </i>The underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]      At the outset, it must always be borne in mind, that Courts have decided, in a Plethora of cases, that where a rule of Court specifies the mode, manner and procedures for something to be done (such as an act for example) such thing should be carried out in the manner prescribed by the appropriate rules.  In Nyaro v Zading (YL 124 of 2015) [2016 NG CA 10] (28<sup>th</sup> July 2016) Onalaja, JCA, made this statement;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    “<i>The law, no doubt, is that rules of Court should be obeyed</i>”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In Lablache De Charmoye v. Lablache De Charmoye SCA 9 of 2019 SCCA 34 (17th September 2019) the Court said that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“Rules cannot be overlooked for the sake of expedience or simplicity because rules are to be followed”.</i>  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">With this in mind, should it be the case in the instant case?</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]      We learned in our studies of elementary procedural law, that a statement of defence is pleading, and that it provides a concise road map of the defendant’s position <i>vis a vis</i> a statement of claim.  We also learned, that it is the first step in procedural law afforded to the defendant to respond to the allegations contain in the statement of claim.  The defendant to respond to the allegations contain in the statement of claim.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]      In addition, the defendant will state the material facts that from the basis of the defence that will be raised.  A statement of defence, therefore, is not an affidavit, its pleading and rules that apply to it are different than the rules that apply to affidavit.  The Britannica defines pleadings as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Pleadings are formal written documents by which the parties set forth their contention.  Pleadings serve to give notice of the nature of the claim or defence, state the facts that each party, believes exist, narrow the number of issues that ultimately must be decided, provide means to determine whether the party has a valid claim or defence”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]      The requirements of pleadings are therefore different than of affidavits.  In the case of Trope v. South Africa Reserve Bank and Another and Two other cases [1993] Z ASCA 54: 1993 (3) SA 264 was referred to, where GrossKopt, JA had articulated the requirements to be as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>It is trite law that a party has to plead with sufficient clarity and particularly, the material facts upon which he relied for the conclusion of the law he wishes the Court to draw from those facts.  It is not sufficient, therefore, to plead a conclusion of the law without pleading the material facts giving rise to it”.</i>  In Etienne Gill vs. James Gill SCA 4 of 2004, the Court made similar point when it emphasised that a plaint must contain statements of the circumstances constituting the cause of action, and the relevant material facts.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]      In ABSA Bank limited vs. Jaco Pelzer Mocke CS1324/2016 (in the High Court of South Africa) the Court has this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “2. <i>The object of pleadings is to enable each side to come to trial prepared to meet the case of the other, and not to be taken by surprise.  Pleadings must therefore be lucid and logical and in an intelligible form and the cause of action or defence must clearly appear from the factual allegations made.  The particulars of claim should be so phrased that the defendant may reasonably and fairly required to plead thereto”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]      It is also statutory law, as illustrated in the SCCP, that a statement of defence is pleading.  At Section 75 of the SCCP, we are told what a statement of defence should contain.  Section 75 of the SCCP reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <i>“The statement of defence must contain a clear and distinct statement of material facts on which the defendant relies to meet the claim.  A mere general denial of the plaintiff claim is not sufficient.  Material facts alleged in the plaint must be distinctly denied or then will be taken to be admitted”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]      It follows to say, unreservedly, that in view that a statement of claim is pleading and is subject to a different rule regime than that of affidavit, the requirements under the provisions of Section 77 of the SCCP do not apply to affidavit.  In fact, contrary to what Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner has sought to argue, there is no rule known to this Court, that requires a deponent of an affidavit to annex to its affidavit a list of documents he wishes to produce as documentary evidence at the hearing, and to state where the same may be seen within a reasonable time before the hearing.  Therefore, learned Counsel’s objection to the production of the documents on that basis is groundless, and accordingly, is overruled.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[23]      As regards to affidavit, it is well settled, that it is evidence to be relied upon by the Court in determining the issues in contention between the parties.  It is a sworn written statement made under oath or affirmation as to the truth, before a person authorised to administer oath under Section 171 of the SCCP, which in most cases, is a Notary Public.  As to the requirements of affidavits, Section 170 of the SCCP provides for the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the witness is able on his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements as to his belief, with the grounds thereof, may be admitted”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="left" class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:left; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [24]     The proposition that affidavits are sworn evidence, and that they have to be in compliance with the law of evidence to be made admissible, is well illustrated by Pillay J in Michel vs. Michel (MA399/2019) [2020] SCSC 303 (9<sup>th</sup>  June 2020) in relying on Elmastry &amp; Anor v. Hua Sun (MA195/2010) (arising in CC13/2014) [2019] SCSC96 Z (8<sup>th</sup> November 2019).  In that case, the Court had relied on Daniella Lablache De Charmoye vs. Patrick Lablache De Charmoye (Civil Appeal SCA MA08/2019, SCSC 35 (17 September 2019) in which, <i>interalia</i>, Twomey CJ (as she then was) had said that, </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Affidavit are sworn evidence and evidential Rules for admission cannot be waived”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[25]      As a matter of procedural law, it is well settled, that it is not sufficient for an affidavit to simply contain averments in support of an application before a Court in this jurisdiction.  The facts averred, have to be supported by documentary evidence which have to be exhibited to the affidavit.  This case law requirements is in fact, in line with Practice Direction 32 (Supplements CPR Part 32) 4.3 (1) of the White Book.  This case law requirement was emphasised by Carolus J, in MC112/2020, MA30/2021 and MA31/2021 (arising in MC11/2020 and MC20/2021 in a matter between Savoy Development Limited and Davia Todorova and Yuriy Nesterenko.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[26]      This legal position, has been established in the precedent case of Lablache De Charmoye vs. Lablache De Charmoye SCA MA08/2019 [17<sup>th</sup> September 2019] when Robinson J. stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“In Re Hinchcliffe, a person of unsound mind, deceased [1895] 1 CH, 1117, the Court of Appeal held that any document to be used in combination with an affidavit must be exhibited to and filed with it.  In the same light, any document to be used in combination with an affidavit in support of an application [to stay execution] must be exhibited to and filed with it.  Counsel for the Applicant should be mindful that affidavit stands in lien of the testimony of the Applicant”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[27]      In Laurette &amp; Ors vs. Savy &amp; Ors, SCA MA13/2019 [22 October 2019], the Applicant had applied to the Court for an extension of time to file a notice of Appeal against the Judgment of the Supreme Court.  In her ruling, noting the deficiencies in the affidavit, Robinson J, stated that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        <i>“the Judgment had not been exhibited to the affidavit”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[28]      Clearly, therefore, on account of the case law authorities discussed in the preceding paragraphs, documentary evidence which the Applicant / Respondent intends to tender in evidence as exhibits, ought to have been exhibited to the affidavit.  Having not done so, the documentary evidence cannot be admitted to be made part of the evidence for the Applicant’s / Respondent’s case.  Is the failure of the Applicant / Respondent to exhibit the documents to his affidavit fatal to his case, in that, he cannot, therefore, produce these documents at the hearing of the petition proper?  As per the rules elaborated in the various case law cited above, the answer is “yes”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [29]     There is before this Court, now under consideration, a motion filed in Court by the Applicant / Respondent, to amend his affidavit in reply to the Respondent’s / Petitioner’s motion in respect of the ancillary relief proceedings initiated.  In answer to that motion, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner, has submitted, that an affidavit cannot in law be amended, contending, that instead, the Applicant should have filed a substitute or an additional affidavit.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[30]      Considering the rival contentions, and perusing the materials available on record, the sole point that now arises for consideration, is whether the Applicant / Respondent should be permitted to amend his affidavit?  It must be borne in mind, that there is no statutory provision in the SCCP where under an affidavit of a witness can be amended.  However, it is well settled by case law authorities, that the proposition that an affidavit cannot be amended is trite law.  Therefore, it is safe to suggest, that whilst pleadings can be amended, an affidavit which is sworn evidence, cannot.  Once you’ve sworn an affidavit, it is done with one exception, typos.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[31]      Clearly, therefore, in the absence of any statutory provisions in the SCCP prescribing for rules governing exhibits as regards to affidavits, and the manner which documents have to be exhibited to affidavits, by not complying with the rules elaborated by case law, the Applicant / Respondent has failed to put before this Court all the evidence required for the Court to determine the petition justly and fairly.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[32]      Furthermore, the failure on the part of the Applicant / Respondent to exhibit the documents, means, that he cannot tender those documents as exhibits amid the objection by Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[33]      To determine the second question, that is to say, whether or not the Applicant’s / Respondent’s motion for leave to amend his affidavit should succeed, this Court has had regards to several case law authorities.  In a High Court ruling (a Tanzanian’s case) between Annandumi Alex Kipaa vs. Zahara Adamu Munisi, the Court acknowledged, that “there is a divided opinion as to whether a defective affidavit can be amended.  The Court referred to one of the literatures on the subject, that is, Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure V011, 15<sup>th</sup> edition whose position was quoted to be that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“a detective affidavit cannot be amended, but a fresh affidavit setting out the facts correctly can be filed”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[34]      In the case of Phantom Modern Transport [1985] Limited vs. D.T. Dobie ((Tanzania) Limited, the Court adopted a similar position.  Makaramba J, in the case of Annandumi Alex Alias Kipaa (Supra) accepted that position when he made the following statement;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“As I intimated to earlier I have determined that there are defects in the Applicant’s affidavit but which are curable by way of “amendment” by the Applicant filing a fresh affidavit with correct averments”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[35]      In other jurisdiction, notably, in many states in India, for example, the legal position is quite clear, an affidavit cannot be amended.  In NandaKumar Shankar Mhatre vs. Dayan and Mahader Matre and Ors [1989] (1) Bom CR112, the Bombay High Court had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“I am unable to see how a party can be allowed to amend the affidavit which has already been made by him.  The affidavit once made cannot be allowed to be changed by amending the same.  Consequently, the prayer of learned Counsel for the Petitioner for permission to amend the affidavit cannot be granted”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[36]      In Dwarka Natha vs. Income Tax Officer Air 1966 SC81 (a case where the affidavit was defective for lack of verification) the Supreme Court held that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“If an affidavit is defective in any manner, instead of rejecting it, a reasonable opportunity is to be given to the party concern to file a better affidavit complying with the requirements of the law”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[37]      In B.P Pant vs. Cadre Authority U.P Co-operative Diary Federation and Milk Union and Others, the High Court of Allahbad said the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“It is known to us all, that affidavit is a piece of evidence and cannot be allowed to be amended at the behest of the Petitioner.  However, this has been a long practice of the view that a statement given under oath by a witness cannot be allowed to be amended at the behest of a witness, similarly, writ petition founded on affidavit cannot be allowed to be amended”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[38]      A close scrutiny of the case law authorities discussed in the preceding paragraphs in respect of amendment of affidavits, leads me to the conclusion, that where the Courts have concluded that an affidavit can be amended, they meant, that the amendment has to be by way of filing fresh or additional affidavit not amending the affidavit which has already been verified and filed in Court.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>CONCLUSION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[39]      In the final analysis, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this ruling, the Applicant’s / Respondent’s motion for leave of this Court to amend his affidavit filed in Court in reply to the Respondent’s / Petitioner’s petition is denied, and accordingly, the motion is hereby dismissed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 02<sup>nd</sup> June 2022.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">B. Adeline</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judge of the Supreme Court</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>            </i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"> </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-4adf05dbd2b7bedf816a0d5113d8787635011957247512e8760527a2afe2b97a"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">This is a ruling on a notice of motion supported by an affidavit brought by one Karl Joubert of Cote D’Or, Praslin, Seychelles “the Applicant” (the Respondent in the main case) pursuant to Section 121 read with Section 122 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure, “the SCCP”, filed in Court on the 12<sup>th</sup> May 2022 as MA105/2022 (arising out of DC158/2020), praying this Court for leave to amend the supporting affidavit to the petition proper, in the manner formulated and shown in red ink.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[2]        “The Respondent”, (the Petitioner in the main case) opposed the motion but opted not to file an affidavit in reply, sanctioned by the Court in accordance with Section 125 of the SCCP.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[3]        The motion, with added emphasis by Learned Counsel for the Applicant / Respondent as underlined below, partly reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “For an Order that leave be granted <u>to amend the affidavit in reply and add the list of documents as per the amended reply attached herewith”.</u></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE BACKGROUND</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:0in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[4]        The background to this motion, is that, the Respondent / Petitioner had filed in Court by way of notice of motion supported by an affidavit, a claim for ancillary relief under Rule 4 (1) (f) and (i) of the Matrimonial Causes Rules after her conditional decree of divorce had been made absolute.  In the course of the hearing of the motion, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner objected to the production of certain documents as documentary evidence, contending, that under the provisions of the SCCP they are inadmissible, and cannot therefore be admitted in evidence.  Learned Counsel stated, that Section 77 of the SCCP requires, that the “list of the defendant’s documents” be listed to give advance notice to the Respondent / Petitioner for them to be rendered admissible.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE APPLICANT’S / RESPONDENT’S AFFIDAVIT</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[5]        In the supporting affidavit to the motion, the Applicant / Respondent makes, <i>interalia</i>, the following averments;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“2. <i>That I have been advised by my Counsel that in Order for me to produce certain documents which I will be relying on before the Court, I must list those in my affidavit in reply which was not done previously.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>3. I am now desirous of having those documents that I will rely on in the hearing listed in my affidavit in reply.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>4. the content and nature of my affidavit remains completely unchanged and therefore will in no way prejudice the Petitioner.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>5. that the case before the Court is still ongoing and I have not yet closed my case.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>6. that it is in the best interest of justice that the Court allows me to make this amendments”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[7]        In essence, by his motion, the Applicant / Respondent, contends, that the proposed amendment is necessary, given the evolution of new facts, and the fact that her client had omitted to list the documents he wishes to tender in evidence in his affidavit in reply to the Respondent’s / Petitioner’s petition.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION OPPOSING THE MOTION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[8]        Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner opposition to the motion, stems from his contention, that an affidavit is evidence and cannot, therefore, be amended.  Learned Counsel submitted, that the Applicant’s / Respondent’s affidavit in reply in respect of the main case, is evidence placed before the Court upon which the Court will make its determination of the issues in contention between the parties, and therefore, one cannot in law amend the evidence.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[9]        Learned Counsel stated, that in law one can amend a plaint or a defence because they are pleadings, but certainly not an affidavit.  He explained, that the proper way his learned friend could have dealt with the matter to achieve what she has sought to achieve, was to require her client to substitute his affidavit, or file a fresh additional affidavit in reply to the petition.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[10]      Learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner also raised concerns about the impact of the motion on the speedy resolution of the case, contended, that the motion will cause further delay in concluding the case because the hearing has to be put to a halt for the Court to consider the motion.  Learned Counsel stated, that instead, Counsel for the Applicant / Respondent could have simply sent him a list of documents her clients intends to rely on because the documents are from a bank, not from the Applicant witness himself, or his learned friend could have filed a motion to require the Applicant / Respondent to provide the list of the documents he wishes to tender in evidence as exhibits to the Respondent / Petitioner.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[11]      Learned Counsel explained, that he is particularly uneased with the idea of an adjournment to consider the motion, when at this stage of the proceeding, the Applicant / Respondent was about to complete his examination in chief, and he was about to start cross examining him over his evidence.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>COUNSEL’S SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[12]      In answer to learned Counsel’s submission opposing the motion, learned Counsel for the Applicant / Respondent, submitted, that the motion is not seeking to amend his client’s affidavit in reply to the petition in the main case in any shape or form, because he is not making any amendments to the content of the affidavit, but rather, to simply add the list of documents which are to be tendered in evidence as exhibits.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[13]      As to the proposition that an adjournment to consider the motion will further delay proceedings and the conclusion of the case, learned Counsel submitted, that the delay encountered so far, is attributed to the fact, that the parties in this case were attempting to reach a compromise in the form of a settlement which has failed.  Learned Counsel indicated, that her client is ready and willing to bear the cost of the adjournment should cost becomes an issue.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>QUESTIONS AT ISSUE</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[14]      For the purpose of this ruling, there are two questions at issue that should be made the subjects of discussion for a determination of the issues the Court is confronted with in this case, notably;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(1) Should the objection by learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner to the production of documentary evidence as exhibits by the Applicant / Respondent on the ground that the requirement of Section 77 of the SCCP has not been complied with, in that, the Applicant / Respondent has not annexed to his affidavit the list of documents he intends to tender in evidence at the hearing of the petition be sustained?, and</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">(2) whether or not, the Applicant’s / Respondent’s motion for leave to amend his affidavit to annex therewith the list of documents he intends to tender as exhibits at the continuation of the hearing of the petition should succeed?</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:9.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>THE DISCUSSION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[15]      In my quest to find the correct answer to the first question, there is a need to make references to Section 77 of the SCCP, which statutory provision, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner has relied on and referred the Court to Section 77 is couched in the following terms;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>If the defendant intends to produce any documentary evidence, he shall annex a list thereof to his <u>statement of defence</u> and shall state where the same may be seen a reasonable time before the hearing.  </i>The underlined emphasis is mine.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[16]      At the outset, it must always be borne in mind, that Courts have decided, in a Plethora of cases, that where a rule of Court specifies the mode, manner and procedures for something to be done (such as an act for example) such thing should be carried out in the manner prescribed by the appropriate rules.  In Nyaro v Zading (YL 124 of 2015) [2016 NG CA 10] (28<sup>th</sup> July 2016) Onalaja, JCA, made this statement;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                                    “<i>The law, no doubt, is that rules of Court should be obeyed</i>”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            In Lablache De Charmoye v. Lablache De Charmoye SCA 9 of 2019 SCCA 34 (17th September 2019) the Court said that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“Rules cannot be overlooked for the sake of expedience or simplicity because rules are to be followed”.</i>  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">With this in mind, should it be the case in the instant case?</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[17]      We learned in our studies of elementary procedural law, that a statement of defence is pleading, and that it provides a concise road map of the defendant’s position <i>vis a vis</i> a statement of claim.  We also learned, that it is the first step in procedural law afforded to the defendant to respond to the allegations contain in the statement of claim.  The defendant to respond to the allegations contain in the statement of claim.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[18]      In addition, the defendant will state the material facts that from the basis of the defence that will be raised.  A statement of defence, therefore, is not an affidavit, its pleading and rules that apply to it are different than the rules that apply to affidavit.  The Britannica defines pleadings as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Pleadings are formal written documents by which the parties set forth their contention.  Pleadings serve to give notice of the nature of the claim or defence, state the facts that each party, believes exist, narrow the number of issues that ultimately must be decided, provide means to determine whether the party has a valid claim or defence”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[19]      The requirements of pleadings are therefore different than of affidavits.  In the case of Trope v. South Africa Reserve Bank and Another and Two other cases [1993] Z ASCA 54: 1993 (3) SA 264 was referred to, where GrossKopt, JA had articulated the requirements to be as follows;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>It is trite law that a party has to plead with sufficient clarity and particularly, the material facts upon which he relied for the conclusion of the law he wishes the Court to draw from those facts.  It is not sufficient, therefore, to plead a conclusion of the law without pleading the material facts giving rise to it”.</i>  In Etienne Gill vs. James Gill SCA 4 of 2004, the Court made similar point when it emphasised that a plaint must contain statements of the circumstances constituting the cause of action, and the relevant material facts.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[20]      In ABSA Bank limited vs. Jaco Pelzer Mocke CS1324/2016 (in the High Court of South Africa) the Court has this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            “2. <i>The object of pleadings is to enable each side to come to trial prepared to meet the case of the other, and not to be taken by surprise.  Pleadings must therefore be lucid and logical and in an intelligible form and the cause of action or defence must clearly appear from the factual allegations made.  The particulars of claim should be so phrased that the defendant may reasonably and fairly required to plead thereto”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[21]      It is also statutory law, as illustrated in the SCCP, that a statement of defence is pleading.  At Section 75 of the SCCP, we are told what a statement of defence should contain.  Section 75 of the SCCP reads;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            <i>“The statement of defence must contain a clear and distinct statement of material facts on which the defendant relies to meet the claim.  A mere general denial of the plaintiff claim is not sufficient.  Material facts alleged in the plaint must be distinctly denied or then will be taken to be admitted”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[22]      It follows to say, unreservedly, that in view that a statement of claim is pleading and is subject to a different rule regime than that of affidavit, the requirements under the provisions of Section 77 of the SCCP do not apply to affidavit.  In fact, contrary to what Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner has sought to argue, there is no rule known to this Court, that requires a deponent of an affidavit to annex to its affidavit a list of documents he wishes to produce as documentary evidence at the hearing, and to state where the same may be seen within a reasonable time before the hearing.  Therefore, learned Counsel’s objection to the production of the documents on that basis is groundless, and accordingly, is overruled.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[23]      As regards to affidavit, it is well settled, that it is evidence to be relied upon by the Court in determining the issues in contention between the parties.  It is a sworn written statement made under oath or affirmation as to the truth, before a person authorised to administer oath under Section 171 of the SCCP, which in most cases, is a Notary Public.  As to the requirements of affidavits, Section 170 of the SCCP provides for the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Affidavits shall be confined to such facts as the witness is able on his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements as to his belief, with the grounds thereof, may be admitted”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p align="left" class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:left; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [24]     The proposition that affidavits are sworn evidence, and that they have to be in compliance with the law of evidence to be made admissible, is well illustrated by Pillay J in Michel vs. Michel (MA399/2019) [2020] SCSC 303 (9<sup>th</sup>  June 2020) in relying on Elmastry &amp; Anor v. Hua Sun (MA195/2010) (arising in CC13/2014) [2019] SCSC96 Z (8<sup>th</sup> November 2019).  In that case, the Court had relied on Daniella Lablache De Charmoye vs. Patrick Lablache De Charmoye (Civil Appeal SCA MA08/2019, SCSC 35 (17 September 2019) in which, <i>interalia</i>, Twomey CJ (as she then was) had said that, </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">“<i>Affidavit are sworn evidence and evidential Rules for admission cannot be waived”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[25]      As a matter of procedural law, it is well settled, that it is not sufficient for an affidavit to simply contain averments in support of an application before a Court in this jurisdiction.  The facts averred, have to be supported by documentary evidence which have to be exhibited to the affidavit.  This case law requirements is in fact, in line with Practice Direction 32 (Supplements CPR Part 32) 4.3 (1) of the White Book.  This case law requirement was emphasised by Carolus J, in MC112/2020, MA30/2021 and MA31/2021 (arising in MC11/2020 and MC20/2021 in a matter between Savoy Development Limited and Davia Todorova and Yuriy Nesterenko.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[26]      This legal position, has been established in the precedent case of Lablache De Charmoye vs. Lablache De Charmoye SCA MA08/2019 [17<sup>th</sup> September 2019] when Robinson J. stated the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">            </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“In Re Hinchcliffe, a person of unsound mind, deceased [1895] 1 CH, 1117, the Court of Appeal held that any document to be used in combination with an affidavit must be exhibited to and filed with it.  In the same light, any document to be used in combination with an affidavit in support of an application [to stay execution] must be exhibited to and filed with it.  Counsel for the Applicant should be mindful that affidavit stands in lien of the testimony of the Applicant”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[27]      In Laurette &amp; Ors vs. Savy &amp; Ors, SCA MA13/2019 [22 October 2019], the Applicant had applied to the Court for an extension of time to file a notice of Appeal against the Judgment of the Supreme Court.  In her ruling, noting the deficiencies in the affidavit, Robinson J, stated that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">                        <i>“the Judgment had not been exhibited to the affidavit”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[28]      Clearly, therefore, on account of the case law authorities discussed in the preceding paragraphs, documentary evidence which the Applicant / Respondent intends to tender in evidence as exhibits, ought to have been exhibited to the affidavit.  Having not done so, the documentary evidence cannot be admitted to be made part of the evidence for the Applicant’s / Respondent’s case.  Is the failure of the Applicant / Respondent to exhibit the documents to his affidavit fatal to his case, in that, he cannot, therefore, produce these documents at the hearing of the petition proper?  As per the rules elaborated in the various case law cited above, the answer is “yes”.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"> [29]     There is before this Court, now under consideration, a motion filed in Court by the Applicant / Respondent, to amend his affidavit in reply to the Respondent’s / Petitioner’s motion in respect of the ancillary relief proceedings initiated.  In answer to that motion, learned Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner, has submitted, that an affidavit cannot in law be amended, contending, that instead, the Applicant should have filed a substitute or an additional affidavit.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[30]      Considering the rival contentions, and perusing the materials available on record, the sole point that now arises for consideration, is whether the Applicant / Respondent should be permitted to amend his affidavit?  It must be borne in mind, that there is no statutory provision in the SCCP where under an affidavit of a witness can be amended.  However, it is well settled by case law authorities, that the proposition that an affidavit cannot be amended is trite law.  Therefore, it is safe to suggest, that whilst pleadings can be amended, an affidavit which is sworn evidence, cannot.  Once you’ve sworn an affidavit, it is done with one exception, typos.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[31]      Clearly, therefore, in the absence of any statutory provisions in the SCCP prescribing for rules governing exhibits as regards to affidavits, and the manner which documents have to be exhibited to affidavits, by not complying with the rules elaborated by case law, the Applicant / Respondent has failed to put before this Court all the evidence required for the Court to determine the petition justly and fairly.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[32]      Furthermore, the failure on the part of the Applicant / Respondent to exhibit the documents, means, that he cannot tender those documents as exhibits amid the objection by Counsel for the Respondent / Petitioner.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[33]      To determine the second question, that is to say, whether or not the Applicant’s / Respondent’s motion for leave to amend his affidavit should succeed, this Court has had regards to several case law authorities.  In a High Court ruling (a Tanzanian’s case) between Annandumi Alex Kipaa vs. Zahara Adamu Munisi, the Court acknowledged, that “there is a divided opinion as to whether a defective affidavit can be amended.  The Court referred to one of the literatures on the subject, that is, Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure V011, 15<sup>th</sup> edition whose position was quoted to be that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“a detective affidavit cannot be amended, but a fresh affidavit setting out the facts correctly can be filed”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[34]      In the case of Phantom Modern Transport [1985] Limited vs. D.T. Dobie ((Tanzania) Limited, the Court adopted a similar position.  Makaramba J, in the case of Annandumi Alex Alias Kipaa (Supra) accepted that position when he made the following statement;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“As I intimated to earlier I have determined that there are defects in the Applicant’s affidavit but which are curable by way of “amendment” by the Applicant filing a fresh affidavit with correct averments”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:144px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[35]      In other jurisdiction, notably, in many states in India, for example, the legal position is quite clear, an affidavit cannot be amended.  In NandaKumar Shankar Mhatre vs. Dayan and Mahader Matre and Ors [1989] (1) Bom CR112, the Bombay High Court had this to say;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“I am unable to see how a party can be allowed to amend the affidavit which has already been made by him.  The affidavit once made cannot be allowed to be changed by amending the same.  Consequently, the prayer of learned Counsel for the Petitioner for permission to amend the affidavit cannot be granted”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[36]      In Dwarka Natha vs. Income Tax Officer Air 1966 SC81 (a case where the affidavit was defective for lack of verification) the Supreme Court held that;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“If an affidavit is defective in any manner, instead of rejecting it, a reasonable opportunity is to be given to the party concern to file a better affidavit complying with the requirements of the law”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[37]      In B.P Pant vs. Cadre Authority U.P Co-operative Diary Federation and Milk Union and Others, the High Court of Allahbad said the following;</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>“It is known to us all, that affidavit is a piece of evidence and cannot be allowed to be amended at the behest of the Petitioner.  However, this has been a long practice of the view that a statement given under oath by a witness cannot be allowed to be amended at the behest of a witness, similarly, writ petition founded on affidavit cannot be allowed to be amended”.</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0in"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[38]      A close scrutiny of the case law authorities discussed in the preceding paragraphs in respect of amendment of affidavits, leads me to the conclusion, that where the Courts have concluded that an affidavit can be amended, they meant, that the amendment has to be by way of filing fresh or additional affidavit not amending the affidavit which has already been verified and filed in Court.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><b>CONCLUSION</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">[39]      In the final analysis, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this ruling, the Applicant’s / Respondent’s motion for leave of this Court to amend his affidavit filed in Court in reply to the Respondent’s / Petitioner’s petition is denied, and accordingly, the motion is hereby dismissed.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 02<sup>nd</sup> June 2022.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">________________________</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">B. Adeline</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif">Judge of the Supreme Court</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0in; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:.5in"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,serif"><i>            </i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-.5in; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"> </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Tue, 02 Aug 2022 06:50:52 +0000 Franzisca Mitterer 5117 at http://seylii.org Parcou v Laporte (MC 109 of 2019) [2020] SCSC 996 (15 December 2020); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2020/996 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Parcou v Laporte (MC 109 of 2019) [2020] SCSC 996 (15 December 2020);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Anonymous (not verified)</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 07/01/2022 - 09:58</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2020/996/2020-scsc-996.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=50539">2020-scsc-996.docx</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2020/996/2020-scsc-996.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=6884368">2020-scsc-996.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p>CAROLUS J<br /> Background</p> <p>The Petitioner is seeking to have the judgment of the Supreme Court in CS128 of 2018 delivered on 11 November 2019 in favour of the Respondent set aside, and for a new trial on the merits to be ordered.<br /> The Petitioner Rosita Parcou, the widow of the late Kaven Julien Parcou (“the Deceased”) and the Respondent Jill Laporte were Defendant and Plaintiff respectively in CS128 of 2018. The Respondent (then plaintiff) had brought an action simultaneously en recherche de paternité and en desaveu de paternité claiming that she was the biological daughter of Julien Kaven Parcou who passed away on 20 October 2017, although at the time of her birth her mother was married to Donald Laporte and she bears the name Laporte. The Respondent averred that she had known the Deceased from a very early age and visited him regularly at his business office. Two witnesses, who used to work for the Deceased corroborated the Respondent’s evidence stating that the Deceased had introduced the Respondent to them `as his daughter. The Respondent’s mother also corroborated her evidence.<br /> The Petitioner (then Defendant) denied the Respondent’s averments, stating that she had never heard of the Respondent from the Deceased and never met her until the Supreme Court case. As the executrix of the Deceased’s estate she had gone through his papers and had not seen anything relating to the Respondent. The Petitioner also averred that the Deceased was unable to father any children. The Respondent was born in 1973 and the Petitioner met the Deceased much later during his life and they married in 1999.<br /> One of the Deceased’s friends testified on behalf of the Petitioner stating that he knew the Deceased for 46 years as they were both freemasons and that the Deceased spoke and wrote English well and would not make grammatical mistakes. He stated that he was one of the Deceased’s best friends and that he had never heard of the Respondent. In cross examination he admitted that he did not know the Deceased’s or his wife’s parent’s names. He also admitted that Deceased was a bit reserved but stated that he was like a brother to him.<br /> The then Chief Justice, M. Twomey gave judgment for the plaintiff (Respondent in the present proceedings) declaring her as the child of Julien Kaven Parcou, and ordering her birth certificate to be amended reflecting the same.<br /> The Petitioner is now petitioning this Court under section 194 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure (SCCP) for the said judgment to be set aside and for a new trial on the merits to be ordered on the basis of new evidence just discovered by the petitioner; in the interest of justice; and that the said judgment is generally unsafe and unsatisfactory, with costs.<br /> The Respondent filed an answer to the petition essentially stating that save for the averments regarding new evidence, namely the similarity of skin colour of the Respondent and Donald Laporte, no other averment made in the petition is relevant to the application for a new trial. She averred that the averments in the petition may be relevant to an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court but not to an application for a new trial. She further averred that insofar as the aforementioned averments are concerned, had the petitioner been diligent in preparing her case before the Supreme Court she would have been able to seek, obtain and lead evidence of the alleged difference in skin colour and physiognomy between the Respondent and the late Kaven Parcou. She avers that at the very least such evidence could have been sought and obtained through a request for further particulars of the plaint. The Respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.<br /> Counsel for the Petitioner relied om his written submissions while counsel for the Respondent opted to make oral submissions.</p> <p>The Law</p> <p>The circumstances in which a new trial may be granted are provided for under section 194 of the SCCP. This and other relevant provisions are reproduced below:</p> <p>New Trial<br /> When a new trial may be granted<br /> 194.      A new trial may be granted on the application of either party to the suit –<br /> (a) where fraud or violence has been employed or documents subsequently discovered to be forged have been made use of by the opposite party;<br /> (b) when new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the hearing of the suit, has since been discovered or become available;<br /> (c) when it appears to the court to be necessary for the ends of justice.<br />  <br /> Procedure to obtain new trial<br /> 195.     Application for a new trial shall be made by petition supported by an affidavit of the facts, and shall be served on the opposite party in the same manner and subject to the same rules as to time for appearance as in the case of plaints.<br />  <br /> Application, whe n to be made<br /> 196.     Application  for a new trial must be made –<br />       (a) if judgment was given against the defendant in default, within three months from the date when execution of the judgment was effected or from the earliest date on which anything was paid or done in satisfaction of the judgment;<br />      (b) in all other cases, within three months from the date of the judgment.<br />  <br /> Forgery, fraud or new evidence<br /> 197.     Where a new trial is applied for on the grounds of forgery, fraud or new<br /> evidence, the period of three months mentioned in section 196 shall only run from the day on which the forgery or fraud shall have been known or the new evidence discovered, provided that in the last two cases there is written proof of the day on which such fraud or new evidence shall have been discovered.<br /> […]<br />  <br /> What issues may be raised at new trial<br /> 201.      It shall not be competent for the applicant to raise any other issues at the new trial except those alleged in his application for such new trial.<br /> Analysis<br /> New Matter or Evidence</p> <p>I will first address the granting of a new trial on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence under section 194(b) SCCP. It is clear from the wording of that provision that mere discovery of new matter or evidence is not sufficient for a new trial to be granted. Such matter or evidence must also be important. In addition they must not have been within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by the applicant at the hearing of the suit, after the exercise of due diligence. Therefore evidence which could have been obtained by exercising due diligence but was not, is not sufficient to justify the granting of a new trial.<br /> It was held in Joubert v Pool (1995) SLR 103 that a petitioner who bases his application for a new trial on the ground of new evidence that has been discovered is obliged to satisfy the Court that the new evidence discovered was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not have been produced at the hearing in spite of the exercise of due diligence.<br /> Further, Jacques v Chang (1964) SLR 129 is authority that an application for new trial should be refused if there is nothing in the fresh evidence that would oblige the court to find that the result must necessarily or even probably have been different had the new evidence been adduced at the original hearing.<br /> Kenyan and Indian case law is also relevant to this issue although they relate to new evidence in applications for review of judgements and not to new trials per se. The wording of the Kenyan provision providing for review of judgements on the basis of new evidence is similar to our section 194(b) SCCP as shown by the Kenyan case Khalif Sheikh Adan v Attorney General [2019] eKLR in which the Court pointed out the limited grounds for review of a decision as follows:</p> <p> <br /> (a) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the Applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made;<br /> (b) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or<br /> (c) For any other sufficient reason and whatever the ground there is a requirement that the application has to be made without unreasonable delay. Emphasis added</p> <p>The Court in Khalif Sheikh Adan (supra) cited the Supreme Court of India in the case of Afit Kumar Rath v State of Orisa &amp; Others [2 November, 1999], as follows: </p> <p>The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law which states in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for stabling it. It may be pointed out that the expression “any other sufficient reason” used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.” Emphasis added</p> <p>In the Indian case of Ms Prem Builders vs Union of India through the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad [29 January 2016] the Court quoted the following observations made by Chinnappa Reddy, J in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors [25 January, 1979]:</p> <p>It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. Emphasis added</p> <p>This passage emphasises the difference between review based on discovery of new evidence and appeal and points out that power to review may not be exercised on the ground that a decision was erroneous on the merits, which should be left to the appellate court.<br /> In Ms Prem Builders vs Union of India (supra) the Court further had regard to the following observations of the Court in State of West Bengal &amp; Ors vs Kamal Sengupta &amp; Anr [16 June 2008] as follows:</p> <p>21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier.<br /> 22. The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. Emphasis added</p> <p>As is the position in Seychelles with regards to new trials as reflected in our case law, the above passage not only clearly shows that to justify the review of a judgement new evidence must be relevant and capable of altering the decision if it was produced during the suit, but also highlights the need of the party applying for a new trial to have exercised due diligence. If the new evidence could have been discovered or produced at the original hearing with the exercise of due diligence, a new trial should not be granted. The passage further emphasises that a judgment cannot be corrected by way of review where a different view could have been taken on a point of fact or law. Such determination should be left to the court of appeal.<br /> In summary, for a new trial to be granted under section 194(b), new matter or evidence should be relevant and important. They must not have been capable of being discovered or produced by the applicant at the time of the original hearing of the suit, after the exercise of due diligence and they must be of such character that if produced during the suit the resulting decision might have been different. Furthermore counsels should take care in an application for a new trial to address matters relevant to such procedure as set out above, and not matters relevant to an appeal. The procedure for a new trial is not an appeal and any challenge of the merits of a decision should be left for the determination of the court of appeal.<br /> The Petitioner’s submissions on the grounds on which she seeks a new trial are extensive and sometimes repetitive, and may be summarised as follows: alleged difference in colour and  no physiological resemblance between the Respondent and the Deceased, alleged perjury by the Respondent; fax and letter from the Deceased to the Respondent containing grammatical mistakes whereas the Deceased was a well-read man; sperm count of the Deceased which renders it unlikely that he had fathered a child; credibility of the respondent’s witnesses; lack of DNA testing; what is termed ‘dubious judgements’ in paternity cases; ‘entourage’ at the Court of Appeal staff area; and the defective answer to the petition for new trial and supporting affidavit.<br /> However this Court will confine itself to the consideration of only new evidence averred by petitioner’s counsel to have been discovered after conclusion of the matter before the Supreme Court. These are specified at paragraph 7.1(b)(iv) and 7.1(f) of the Amended Petition for a new trial and in the Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner at paragraph f. Conclusion (b), respectively which are reproduced below:</p> <p>Amended Petition for New Trial</p> <p>7.1. but the most serious factual issue was how dark the Respondent was and of the same skin colour tone, the Petitioner is only now advised, as the deceased original father Donald Laporte on the birth certificate of the Respondent being dark malbar colour;</p> <p>both the deceased Kaven Parcou and the mother of the Respondent are of a light creole colour almost white like several of her children namely Fiona (presently Robinson Seychelles Court of Appeal judge); Wendy (presently Pierre Registrar General); Philip Zialor; </p> <p>the two paragraphs above reveal sufficient new evidence for the purposes of the law to qualify for a new trial since the Respondent;</p> <p> </p> <p>only came to court for the hearing of the case; and<br /> was never seen before by the Petitioner or any of her witnesses; and<br /> no photographs of the Respondent were available or produced pre-trial or at trial<br /> The physiological and family traits of the deceased Donald Laporte only came into the picture when the Petitioner was advised by a third party after the case of how Donald Laporte looked and the similarity of the Respondent to him and dissimilarity in skin colour of the Respondent to her siblings in terms of colour where the latter have a father of lighter colour named, as the Petitioner has just been advised, one Sanders.</p> <p>[…]<br /> f.          The Respondent in this case has perjured herself by saying in her testimony three times that a potential key witness to her case one Alderic Tirant also known as Derick Tirant had passed away when she testified on 29th July 2019 when in fact Mr Tirant has only now passed away on 1st July 2020 . . .<br /> Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner<br /> f. Conclusion<br /> The Petitioner submits that on her uncontradicted averments in her Petition and of Affidavit of facts  there is sufficient substance in the Petition and  Affidavit of facts  for it to qualify in law for a new trial under sections 194(b) and (c) of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of:<br />         […]<br /> b.   fresh evidence of colour resemblance to deceased Donald Laporte and the perjury of the Respondent which, inter alia, has only come to the Petitioners’ knowledge post trial which could not have been ascertained prior to trial with due diligence especially for such a weak case for the Respondent; also, the bad faith and perjury of the Respondent in her own case;</p> <p>The Court will first consider the evidence pertaining to the similarity of physiognomy and colour of the Respondent to Donald Laporte. Although this piece of evidence might be new, the line of argument is not. Petitioner’s counsel himself admits that he had unsuccessfully tried to pursue this line of argument at the hearing of the suit (paragraph (c)7 of Petitioner’s Written Submissions).<br /> I also note that counsel for the Petitioner averred in the Amended Petition that some of the current paternity decisions are dangerous and dubious involving purely subjective interpretation of the law, but at the same time he is also inviting the court to base its decision on an equally subjective (not expert) view of whether the Respondent looks like her father or not. In my view, for the Court to determine the paternity of the Respondent on the basis of whether she looks like the Deceased or Donald Laporte could very well prove to be even more dangerous given that genetics is a complex science. It is not unheard of for example, for a redhead child to be born in a family of brunettes.<br /> Further while DNA evidence could indeed have been helpful in determining paternity of the respondent, it was not compulsory at the time the matter was heard. In addition proper procedures and rules must also be established to ensure a proper and conclusive result from DNA testing. For instance, for DNA evidence to be conclusive if tests are carried out with samples from the Respondent and the Deceased’s niece, it must be certain that the niece is biologically related to the Deceased. It must therefore be proved that the person alleged to be the Deceased’s brother and the Deceased are actually biologically related, and that the niece is the biological daughter of the brother. It is therefore not completely unfounded for the Respondent to refuse DNA testing conducted with samples from the niece and herself without being certain that the niece is biologically related to the Deceased.<br /> Counsel for Respondent stated the following in his oral submissions with regard to the issue of resemblance of the Respondent to Donald Laporte:</p> <p>“…   on this nebulous concept of the colour of the Respondent’s skin, my learned friend said with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever that the Respondent … did not share the same skin colour as her father the deceased Parcou and therefore he [ought] to have been able to adduce some evidence to show that the two of them simply did not look alike, I cannot understand … how my learned friend could not have ascertained that prior to trial …. he could have requested by further [and] better particulars or for any reason whatsoever information as to the skin colour of the Respondent, then Plaintiff. In any event as I say there is no evidence to support his allegation and in fact there is absolutely - because I know those people and I saw them as in fact did the Chief Justice who heard the case - absolutely no difference in skin colour from the two people ... It is no ground for him to now come and say but I saw this person for the first time at the hearing, he knew she was coming … if he had wanted discovery of documents as to skin colour this is something that he had the opportunity to ascertain before and it can avail him not at all for him to now … come before the court and say well this matter has now a reason and in need to bring evidence as to it ….<br />  </p> <p>Regarding the resemblance of the respondent to Donald Laporte it is my view that, since the issue of the Respondent’s skin colour was unsuccessfully pursued before the Supreme Court, such evidence cannot be considered to be material.  If apart from skin colour the resemblance between the respondent and Donald Laporte were so strong as to give credence to the respondent being biologically related to him as averred by the Petitioner, this could be considered as material evidence. However I note regarding this last point that while great emphasis is laid on the issue and details given, of the similarity of the Respondent’s skin colour to that of Donald Laporte in the pleadings, only passing reference is made to similarity of the Respondent to the said Donald Laporte with no details. Secondly and again because the arguments regarding the skin colour of the Respondent were already pursued before the Supreme Court, it is doubtful that if this piece of evidence was presented at the hearing, the judgement would have been different. Thirdly and most importantly, this piece of evidence could have been discovered prior to trial of the suit if the Petitioner had exercised due diligence especially given that the Respondent’s action was also one en contestation de paternité and the plaintiff was aware that the Respondent had been declared as the child of Donald Laporte. Resemblance to the said Donald Laporte is one of the most obvious defences which should have come to mind in the circumstances. It is my view therefore that the evidence regarding the skin colour of the Respondent does not justify a new trial being granted.<br /> With regard to alleged perjury of the respondent, section 102 of the Penal code provides:</p> <p>102. (1) Any person who, in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instructing any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then depending in that proceeding or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of the misdemeanour termed perjury. Emphasis added</p> <p>A reading of this provision shows that merely giving a false statement is not enough, the respondent must have knowingly given a false statement regarding Mr Tirant’s passing and this statement must have related to a material matter.<br /> Respondent’s counsel addressed the Respondent’s alleged perjury in his oral submissions (See Court proceedings of 6th October 2020) as follows:</p> <p>“. . . this is not something that will have any bearing with respect on the case, if my learned friend had wanted to summon Mr Tirant to come and give evidence . . . he would perfectly entitled to do that, he cannot force us to call a witness who he without any diligence whatsoever had ignored . . .  so this is not a witness [the Respondent] who is trying to hide a possible eye witness by saying he has passed, this is actually somebody who regrets that this person cannot come to give evidence because he has passed in her mind, she lives in England . . .  the [tenor] of the evidence will show was not trying to obfuscate and hide the fact that there was a material witness by saying he had passed, which would be perjury, though somebody was saying these are people who know including Mr Tirant who had passed . . . doesn’t detract from the fact my Lady that this was somebody who my learned friends could very easily have called if he had dome his research properly as a witness for his own case, instead of today alleging that there had been obfuscation and perjury by my client as a result off which he needs a new trial.”<br />  </p> <p>The exact reasons for the Respondent testifying that Mr Tirant had passed away (See page 8 and 24 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings at 9.34) are unknown but I take into account that the Respondent resides in the UK and not in Seychelles.<br /> It is also unclear why the Respondent would knowingly make a false statement regarding Mr Tirant’s passing when it appears from her testimony and that of her mother’s, that Mr. Tirant’s testimony would have helped the respondent’s case. The respondent testified that Mr Tirant was one of the persons with whom the Deceased used to leave money for the her (page 8 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings), that the Deceased introduced the respondent to Mr Tirant as his daughter (page 24 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings) and, as per Respondent’s mother’s testimony, Mr Tirant used to bring them food, pampers and wipes from the Deceased (pages 46-47 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings).<br /> In any event, even if the respondent had known that Mr Tirant was alive, she could have chosen not to call him as a witness as pointed out by her counsel. Further Mr Tirant was not the only employee of the Deceased who could have confirmed that he was aware that the Respondent is the daughter of the Deceased. The Respondent called two other employees who corroborated that.<br /> The Petitioner states that Mr Tirant was a potential key witness, but does not explain why. If he was potential key witness to the Petitioner’s case, the Petitioner could and indeed should have done the due diligence, inquired about Mr Tirant’s whereabouts and called him as a witness. I am alive to the fact that if Mr Tirant had appeared in court, it is possible that he could have corroborated the testimony of the Respondent and her mother, thereby strengthening the Respondent’s case making it highly unlikely that this piece of evidence would have changed the outcome of the case in which case the alleged perjury of the Respondent would not justify the granting of a new trial.<br /> Further the petitioner’s averments that the alleged perjury shows bad faith of the Respondent can only stand if the Petitioner had proven that the Respondent made the statement knowing it to be false, which she has not done.<br /> It is therefore not entirely clear how this new piece of evidence would support the Petitioner’s case. For the reasons cited above I find that new evidence regarding alleged perjury of the respondent does not justify granting of a new trial.  </p> <p>   Necessary for the Ends of Justice</p> <p>Since the remaining submissions of counsel for the Petitioner do not deal with the issue of new evidence, they will be considered in terms of section 194(c) in terms of which a new trial may be granted “when it appears to the court to be necessary for the ends of justice”. It is established law that a new trial under 194(c) ought not to be granted except in very special circumstances (Vide Naiken v Pillay (1968) SLR 101; Morel v Hoareau (1972) SLR 127; Pierre-Louis v Vel (MA 97/2015 (arising in CS 120/2008)) [2016] SCSC 14 (20 January 2016)).<br /> In Joanneau and others vs Government Seychelles and another (Civil Side No 12 of 2005) [2013] SCSC 60 (27 March 2013) very special circumstances were considered to be, for example, where the applicant had failed to exercise a right of appeal that was open to him.  In that case, the petitioners having successfully exercised their right of appeal and obtained final judgment in their favour, the Court declined to order a new trial.<br /> In the present case the petitioner is seeking a new trial of CS128/ 2018 but has also appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment rendered in the same case. The grounds of appeal as they appear in the Notice of Appeal are essentially the same grounds on which a new trial before this Court is sought.<br /> Further several issues that the petitioner has raised in support of her case for a new trial have been already been argued before and expressly dealt with by the trial judge, the then Chief Justice. For instance, the issue regarding the faxed letter and allegedly impossible grammatical mistakes therein on the ground that the Deceased was a freemason and such mistakes are “not becoming of a freemason who is supposed to memorise long tracts from the bible during the rituals of freemasonry…” is addressed at paragraphs [24]-[26] where the Learned Chief Justice concludes: </p> <p> </p> <p>… The Deceased’s writing has not been disproved …</p> <p> </p> <p>… I beg to disagree and the proof is in the letter of 2011 itself which contains several grammatical mistakes including the spelling of the word inpack as opposed to impact.  </p> <p> </p> <p>Another issue expressly dealt with by the trial judge concerns the sperm count of the Deceased and the report which the Petitioner relies heavily upon in support of her case. The then Chief Justice addresses this at paragraph [27] of her judgment as follows:</p> <p>“I note that a low sperm count in 2002 when the Deceased was 61 years does not in any way counter the evidence of the Plaintiff that she was conceived though his sexual relationship with her mother in 1972 when he was only 31 years old.”</p> <p>The judgment rendered in CS128/ 2018   is mainly based on the application of Articles 321 and 340 of the Civil Code. In my view, the findings of the learned Chief Justice based on the applicable law in light of the evidence adduced are reasonable.  Nevertheless, the Petitioner is entitled to raise these issues on appeal and whether the Learned Judge erred in law or fact should be determined by the Court of Appeal and not by way of a petition for new trial. I note that the Court of Appeal also has a power to order re-trial under section 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, if that is found to be necessary for whatever reason.  I further note that the Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeal is handicapped in deciding the matter but has not explained why. In that respect counsel for the Respondent stated in his oral submissions</p> <p>“all of these matters that are brought up in the amended petition are matters that he can take up on appeal . . . rules of the Court of Appeal even allow him to make an application to court evidence before the Court of Appeal so all these remedies that he seeks in a new trial are available to him today . . .  he raises save for those two that I have singled out are matters that can be canvas on appeal . . . not only they can be, there are matters that should be canvassed on appeal . . . ”</p> <p>Counsel for the Petitioner is essentially making arguments similar to those made before the trial Court anew. In Hedgeintro International LTD v Hedge Funds Investment Management (Civil Appeal SCA MA05/2017) [2017] SCCA 32 (28 August 2017) the Court stated:</p> <p> “A new trial is entirely new proceedings and not an occasion for improving on an abortive trial or rectifying defects in the old proceedings. The proper approach to a new trial is to regard it as if it had been a first trial. When a trial court relies in the new trial on the entire evidence in the old trial to which some addition had been made, it cannot be said that a proper approach has been made to the new trial.” Emphasis added.</p> <p>As stated earlier, it is the Court of Appeal which should determine whether the trial Judge erred in law or the facts. Should a new trial be granted pursuant to the present application, it appears that the petitioner will rely on the entire evidence from the old trial with some additions in terms of purportedly new evidence, by essentially attempting to pursue arguments regarding alleged similarity of physiognomy and skin colour of the Respondent to Mr. Laporte. Such alleged similarity could have been discovered at the time of the old trial and it appears that the Petitioner is attempting to rectify defects in the old proceedings.<br /> The Court in  Joanneau (supra) further observed with regard to section 194(c):</p> <p>“In fact, the scope of the Section 194 (c) is frequently misunderstood and various applications are being made before our Courts under this section which does not fall within its purview. It is truism that the inherent powers of the Court are very wide. They are not in any way controlled by the provisions of the Code. They are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Procedure Code. The Courts are free to exercise them. The only limitation put on the exercise of the inherent power is that when exercised they are not in conflict or inconsistent with what has been expressly provided for in the Code or where specific provision does not meet the necessities of the case. In any event, the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers of the Appellate Court, which has given its final judgment in this matter. This power can be invoked only to supplement the provisions of the Code and not to override or render the judgment of the Court of Appeal ineffective or to formulate a new case for a party, who omitted to make out his case at the Court of first instance.<br /> As a man of the world, I share the concern of Mr. Derjacques that interest of the minor children may be jeopardized if a new trial is not ordered due to legal technicality in this matter; however, as a judge I have to state that in the long run the “Rule of Law” would be jeopardized still more, if our Courts make laws for themselves in the name of equity or justice using those fancy phrases such as “in the interest of justice” or “for the ends of justice” and the like.” Emphasis added</p> <p>In my view therefore, there are no exceptional circumstances that justify the granting of a new trial in this case. A substantial part of the Petitioner’s arguments relate to issues already argued before and addressed by the trial court and as previously stated, the merits of a judgment should be addressed by the Court of Appeal and not by way of application for a new trial. In fact the Petitioner in its petition for new trial rehashes the same arguments as on appeal and appears to be simply attempting to make use of all potentially available avenues at once.<br /> As to the other issues raised by the petitioner regarding alleged breach of the Constitution, DNA testing, outdated legislation, ‘dubious judgements’, and several paternity cases being appealed against on the ground of subjective interpretation of the law, in my view, these are not issues to be determined in the present proceedings: the judgment in CS128/2018 was based on the applicable law which was the law in existence at the commencement of those proceedings.<br /> Finally, it is important to add that it is irrelevant that the answer to the petition for a new trial by the respondent was unsupported by an affidavit of facts given that the objections raised concerned points of law and matters arising at the original hearing as opposed to factual matters in the personal knowledge of the Respondent. </p> <p>Decision</p> <p>For the reasons given above, I find that the requirements for a new trial under section 194(b) and (c) have not been met. The petition for new trial is dismissed with costs.</p> <p> <br /> Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 15th December 2020<br />  <br />  <br />  <br /> ____________<br /> E. Carolus J</p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-5661dadc478658614bd87160150c92a97e61c559d51eb99c74c554d55a08cb6a"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p>CAROLUS J<br /> Background</p> <p>The Petitioner is seeking to have the judgment of the Supreme Court in CS128 of 2018 delivered on 11 November 2019 in favour of the Respondent set aside, and for a new trial on the merits to be ordered.<br /> The Petitioner Rosita Parcou, the widow of the late Kaven Julien Parcou (“the Deceased”) and the Respondent Jill Laporte were Defendant and Plaintiff respectively in CS128 of 2018. The Respondent (then plaintiff) had brought an action simultaneously en recherche de paternité and en desaveu de paternité claiming that she was the biological daughter of Julien Kaven Parcou who passed away on 20 October 2017, although at the time of her birth her mother was married to Donald Laporte and she bears the name Laporte. The Respondent averred that she had known the Deceased from a very early age and visited him regularly at his business office. Two witnesses, who used to work for the Deceased corroborated the Respondent’s evidence stating that the Deceased had introduced the Respondent to them `as his daughter. The Respondent’s mother also corroborated her evidence.<br /> The Petitioner (then Defendant) denied the Respondent’s averments, stating that she had never heard of the Respondent from the Deceased and never met her until the Supreme Court case. As the executrix of the Deceased’s estate she had gone through his papers and had not seen anything relating to the Respondent. The Petitioner also averred that the Deceased was unable to father any children. The Respondent was born in 1973 and the Petitioner met the Deceased much later during his life and they married in 1999.<br /> One of the Deceased’s friends testified on behalf of the Petitioner stating that he knew the Deceased for 46 years as they were both freemasons and that the Deceased spoke and wrote English well and would not make grammatical mistakes. He stated that he was one of the Deceased’s best friends and that he had never heard of the Respondent. In cross examination he admitted that he did not know the Deceased’s or his wife’s parent’s names. He also admitted that Deceased was a bit reserved but stated that he was like a brother to him.<br /> The then Chief Justice, M. Twomey gave judgment for the plaintiff (Respondent in the present proceedings) declaring her as the child of Julien Kaven Parcou, and ordering her birth certificate to be amended reflecting the same.<br /> The Petitioner is now petitioning this Court under section 194 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure (SCCP) for the said judgment to be set aside and for a new trial on the merits to be ordered on the basis of new evidence just discovered by the petitioner; in the interest of justice; and that the said judgment is generally unsafe and unsatisfactory, with costs.<br /> The Respondent filed an answer to the petition essentially stating that save for the averments regarding new evidence, namely the similarity of skin colour of the Respondent and Donald Laporte, no other averment made in the petition is relevant to the application for a new trial. She averred that the averments in the petition may be relevant to an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court but not to an application for a new trial. She further averred that insofar as the aforementioned averments are concerned, had the petitioner been diligent in preparing her case before the Supreme Court she would have been able to seek, obtain and lead evidence of the alleged difference in skin colour and physiognomy between the Respondent and the late Kaven Parcou. She avers that at the very least such evidence could have been sought and obtained through a request for further particulars of the plaint. The Respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.<br /> Counsel for the Petitioner relied om his written submissions while counsel for the Respondent opted to make oral submissions.</p> <p>The Law</p> <p>The circumstances in which a new trial may be granted are provided for under section 194 of the SCCP. This and other relevant provisions are reproduced below:</p> <p>New Trial<br /> When a new trial may be granted<br /> 194.      A new trial may be granted on the application of either party to the suit –<br /> (a) where fraud or violence has been employed or documents subsequently discovered to be forged have been made use of by the opposite party;<br /> (b) when new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the hearing of the suit, has since been discovered or become available;<br /> (c) when it appears to the court to be necessary for the ends of justice.<br />  <br /> Procedure to obtain new trial<br /> 195.     Application for a new trial shall be made by petition supported by an affidavit of the facts, and shall be served on the opposite party in the same manner and subject to the same rules as to time for appearance as in the case of plaints.<br />  <br /> Application, whe n to be made<br /> 196.     Application  for a new trial must be made –<br />       (a) if judgment was given against the defendant in default, within three months from the date when execution of the judgment was effected or from the earliest date on which anything was paid or done in satisfaction of the judgment;<br />      (b) in all other cases, within three months from the date of the judgment.<br />  <br /> Forgery, fraud or new evidence<br /> 197.     Where a new trial is applied for on the grounds of forgery, fraud or new<br /> evidence, the period of three months mentioned in section 196 shall only run from the day on which the forgery or fraud shall have been known or the new evidence discovered, provided that in the last two cases there is written proof of the day on which such fraud or new evidence shall have been discovered.<br /> […]<br />  <br /> What issues may be raised at new trial<br /> 201.      It shall not be competent for the applicant to raise any other issues at the new trial except those alleged in his application for such new trial.<br /> Analysis<br /> New Matter or Evidence</p> <p>I will first address the granting of a new trial on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence under section 194(b) SCCP. It is clear from the wording of that provision that mere discovery of new matter or evidence is not sufficient for a new trial to be granted. Such matter or evidence must also be important. In addition they must not have been within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by the applicant at the hearing of the suit, after the exercise of due diligence. Therefore evidence which could have been obtained by exercising due diligence but was not, is not sufficient to justify the granting of a new trial.<br /> It was held in Joubert v Pool (1995) SLR 103 that a petitioner who bases his application for a new trial on the ground of new evidence that has been discovered is obliged to satisfy the Court that the new evidence discovered was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not have been produced at the hearing in spite of the exercise of due diligence.<br /> Further, Jacques v Chang (1964) SLR 129 is authority that an application for new trial should be refused if there is nothing in the fresh evidence that would oblige the court to find that the result must necessarily or even probably have been different had the new evidence been adduced at the original hearing.<br /> Kenyan and Indian case law is also relevant to this issue although they relate to new evidence in applications for review of judgements and not to new trials per se. The wording of the Kenyan provision providing for review of judgements on the basis of new evidence is similar to our section 194(b) SCCP as shown by the Kenyan case Khalif Sheikh Adan v Attorney General [2019] eKLR in which the Court pointed out the limited grounds for review of a decision as follows:</p> <p> <br /> (a) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the Applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made;<br /> (b) On account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or<br /> (c) For any other sufficient reason and whatever the ground there is a requirement that the application has to be made without unreasonable delay. Emphasis added</p> <p>The Court in Khalif Sheikh Adan (supra) cited the Supreme Court of India in the case of Afit Kumar Rath v State of Orisa &amp; Others [2 November, 1999], as follows: </p> <p>The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law which states in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for stabling it. It may be pointed out that the expression “any other sufficient reason” used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.” Emphasis added</p> <p>In the Indian case of Ms Prem Builders vs Union of India through the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Dhanbad [29 January 2016] the Court quoted the following observations made by Chinnappa Reddy, J in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors [25 January, 1979]:</p> <p>It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. Emphasis added</p> <p>This passage emphasises the difference between review based on discovery of new evidence and appeal and points out that power to review may not be exercised on the ground that a decision was erroneous on the merits, which should be left to the appellate court.<br /> In Ms Prem Builders vs Union of India (supra) the Court further had regard to the following observations of the Court in State of West Bengal &amp; Ors vs Kamal Sengupta &amp; Anr [16 June 2008] as follows:</p> <p>21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier.<br /> 22. The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. Emphasis added</p> <p>As is the position in Seychelles with regards to new trials as reflected in our case law, the above passage not only clearly shows that to justify the review of a judgement new evidence must be relevant and capable of altering the decision if it was produced during the suit, but also highlights the need of the party applying for a new trial to have exercised due diligence. If the new evidence could have been discovered or produced at the original hearing with the exercise of due diligence, a new trial should not be granted. The passage further emphasises that a judgment cannot be corrected by way of review where a different view could have been taken on a point of fact or law. Such determination should be left to the court of appeal.<br /> In summary, for a new trial to be granted under section 194(b), new matter or evidence should be relevant and important. They must not have been capable of being discovered or produced by the applicant at the time of the original hearing of the suit, after the exercise of due diligence and they must be of such character that if produced during the suit the resulting decision might have been different. Furthermore counsels should take care in an application for a new trial to address matters relevant to such procedure as set out above, and not matters relevant to an appeal. The procedure for a new trial is not an appeal and any challenge of the merits of a decision should be left for the determination of the court of appeal.<br /> The Petitioner’s submissions on the grounds on which she seeks a new trial are extensive and sometimes repetitive, and may be summarised as follows: alleged difference in colour and  no physiological resemblance between the Respondent and the Deceased, alleged perjury by the Respondent; fax and letter from the Deceased to the Respondent containing grammatical mistakes whereas the Deceased was a well-read man; sperm count of the Deceased which renders it unlikely that he had fathered a child; credibility of the respondent’s witnesses; lack of DNA testing; what is termed ‘dubious judgements’ in paternity cases; ‘entourage’ at the Court of Appeal staff area; and the defective answer to the petition for new trial and supporting affidavit.<br /> However this Court will confine itself to the consideration of only new evidence averred by petitioner’s counsel to have been discovered after conclusion of the matter before the Supreme Court. These are specified at paragraph 7.1(b)(iv) and 7.1(f) of the Amended Petition for a new trial and in the Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner at paragraph f. Conclusion (b), respectively which are reproduced below:</p> <p>Amended Petition for New Trial</p> <p>7.1. but the most serious factual issue was how dark the Respondent was and of the same skin colour tone, the Petitioner is only now advised, as the deceased original father Donald Laporte on the birth certificate of the Respondent being dark malbar colour;</p> <p>both the deceased Kaven Parcou and the mother of the Respondent are of a light creole colour almost white like several of her children namely Fiona (presently Robinson Seychelles Court of Appeal judge); Wendy (presently Pierre Registrar General); Philip Zialor; </p> <p>the two paragraphs above reveal sufficient new evidence for the purposes of the law to qualify for a new trial since the Respondent;</p> <p> </p> <p>only came to court for the hearing of the case; and<br /> was never seen before by the Petitioner or any of her witnesses; and<br /> no photographs of the Respondent were available or produced pre-trial or at trial<br /> The physiological and family traits of the deceased Donald Laporte only came into the picture when the Petitioner was advised by a third party after the case of how Donald Laporte looked and the similarity of the Respondent to him and dissimilarity in skin colour of the Respondent to her siblings in terms of colour where the latter have a father of lighter colour named, as the Petitioner has just been advised, one Sanders.</p> <p>[…]<br /> f.          The Respondent in this case has perjured herself by saying in her testimony three times that a potential key witness to her case one Alderic Tirant also known as Derick Tirant had passed away when she testified on 29th July 2019 when in fact Mr Tirant has only now passed away on 1st July 2020 . . .<br /> Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner<br /> f. Conclusion<br /> The Petitioner submits that on her uncontradicted averments in her Petition and of Affidavit of facts  there is sufficient substance in the Petition and  Affidavit of facts  for it to qualify in law for a new trial under sections 194(b) and (c) of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of:<br />         […]<br /> b.   fresh evidence of colour resemblance to deceased Donald Laporte and the perjury of the Respondent which, inter alia, has only come to the Petitioners’ knowledge post trial which could not have been ascertained prior to trial with due diligence especially for such a weak case for the Respondent; also, the bad faith and perjury of the Respondent in her own case;</p> <p>The Court will first consider the evidence pertaining to the similarity of physiognomy and colour of the Respondent to Donald Laporte. Although this piece of evidence might be new, the line of argument is not. Petitioner’s counsel himself admits that he had unsuccessfully tried to pursue this line of argument at the hearing of the suit (paragraph (c)7 of Petitioner’s Written Submissions).<br /> I also note that counsel for the Petitioner averred in the Amended Petition that some of the current paternity decisions are dangerous and dubious involving purely subjective interpretation of the law, but at the same time he is also inviting the court to base its decision on an equally subjective (not expert) view of whether the Respondent looks like her father or not. In my view, for the Court to determine the paternity of the Respondent on the basis of whether she looks like the Deceased or Donald Laporte could very well prove to be even more dangerous given that genetics is a complex science. It is not unheard of for example, for a redhead child to be born in a family of brunettes.<br /> Further while DNA evidence could indeed have been helpful in determining paternity of the respondent, it was not compulsory at the time the matter was heard. In addition proper procedures and rules must also be established to ensure a proper and conclusive result from DNA testing. For instance, for DNA evidence to be conclusive if tests are carried out with samples from the Respondent and the Deceased’s niece, it must be certain that the niece is biologically related to the Deceased. It must therefore be proved that the person alleged to be the Deceased’s brother and the Deceased are actually biologically related, and that the niece is the biological daughter of the brother. It is therefore not completely unfounded for the Respondent to refuse DNA testing conducted with samples from the niece and herself without being certain that the niece is biologically related to the Deceased.<br /> Counsel for Respondent stated the following in his oral submissions with regard to the issue of resemblance of the Respondent to Donald Laporte:</p> <p>“…   on this nebulous concept of the colour of the Respondent’s skin, my learned friend said with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever that the Respondent … did not share the same skin colour as her father the deceased Parcou and therefore he [ought] to have been able to adduce some evidence to show that the two of them simply did not look alike, I cannot understand … how my learned friend could not have ascertained that prior to trial …. he could have requested by further [and] better particulars or for any reason whatsoever information as to the skin colour of the Respondent, then Plaintiff. In any event as I say there is no evidence to support his allegation and in fact there is absolutely - because I know those people and I saw them as in fact did the Chief Justice who heard the case - absolutely no difference in skin colour from the two people ... It is no ground for him to now come and say but I saw this person for the first time at the hearing, he knew she was coming … if he had wanted discovery of documents as to skin colour this is something that he had the opportunity to ascertain before and it can avail him not at all for him to now … come before the court and say well this matter has now a reason and in need to bring evidence as to it ….<br />  </p> <p>Regarding the resemblance of the respondent to Donald Laporte it is my view that, since the issue of the Respondent’s skin colour was unsuccessfully pursued before the Supreme Court, such evidence cannot be considered to be material.  If apart from skin colour the resemblance between the respondent and Donald Laporte were so strong as to give credence to the respondent being biologically related to him as averred by the Petitioner, this could be considered as material evidence. However I note regarding this last point that while great emphasis is laid on the issue and details given, of the similarity of the Respondent’s skin colour to that of Donald Laporte in the pleadings, only passing reference is made to similarity of the Respondent to the said Donald Laporte with no details. Secondly and again because the arguments regarding the skin colour of the Respondent were already pursued before the Supreme Court, it is doubtful that if this piece of evidence was presented at the hearing, the judgement would have been different. Thirdly and most importantly, this piece of evidence could have been discovered prior to trial of the suit if the Petitioner had exercised due diligence especially given that the Respondent’s action was also one en contestation de paternité and the plaintiff was aware that the Respondent had been declared as the child of Donald Laporte. Resemblance to the said Donald Laporte is one of the most obvious defences which should have come to mind in the circumstances. It is my view therefore that the evidence regarding the skin colour of the Respondent does not justify a new trial being granted.<br /> With regard to alleged perjury of the respondent, section 102 of the Penal code provides:</p> <p>102. (1) Any person who, in any judicial proceeding, or for the purpose of instructing any judicial proceeding, knowingly gives false testimony touching any matter which is material to any question then depending in that proceeding or intended to be raised in that proceeding, is guilty of the misdemeanour termed perjury. Emphasis added</p> <p>A reading of this provision shows that merely giving a false statement is not enough, the respondent must have knowingly given a false statement regarding Mr Tirant’s passing and this statement must have related to a material matter.<br /> Respondent’s counsel addressed the Respondent’s alleged perjury in his oral submissions (See Court proceedings of 6th October 2020) as follows:</p> <p>“. . . this is not something that will have any bearing with respect on the case, if my learned friend had wanted to summon Mr Tirant to come and give evidence . . . he would perfectly entitled to do that, he cannot force us to call a witness who he without any diligence whatsoever had ignored . . .  so this is not a witness [the Respondent] who is trying to hide a possible eye witness by saying he has passed, this is actually somebody who regrets that this person cannot come to give evidence because he has passed in her mind, she lives in England . . .  the [tenor] of the evidence will show was not trying to obfuscate and hide the fact that there was a material witness by saying he had passed, which would be perjury, though somebody was saying these are people who know including Mr Tirant who had passed . . . doesn’t detract from the fact my Lady that this was somebody who my learned friends could very easily have called if he had dome his research properly as a witness for his own case, instead of today alleging that there had been obfuscation and perjury by my client as a result off which he needs a new trial.”<br />  </p> <p>The exact reasons for the Respondent testifying that Mr Tirant had passed away (See page 8 and 24 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings at 9.34) are unknown but I take into account that the Respondent resides in the UK and not in Seychelles.<br /> It is also unclear why the Respondent would knowingly make a false statement regarding Mr Tirant’s passing when it appears from her testimony and that of her mother’s, that Mr. Tirant’s testimony would have helped the respondent’s case. The respondent testified that Mr Tirant was one of the persons with whom the Deceased used to leave money for the her (page 8 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings), that the Deceased introduced the respondent to Mr Tirant as his daughter (page 24 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings) and, as per Respondent’s mother’s testimony, Mr Tirant used to bring them food, pampers and wipes from the Deceased (pages 46-47 of the 29th July 2019 proceedings).<br /> In any event, even if the respondent had known that Mr Tirant was alive, she could have chosen not to call him as a witness as pointed out by her counsel. Further Mr Tirant was not the only employee of the Deceased who could have confirmed that he was aware that the Respondent is the daughter of the Deceased. The Respondent called two other employees who corroborated that.<br /> The Petitioner states that Mr Tirant was a potential key witness, but does not explain why. If he was potential key witness to the Petitioner’s case, the Petitioner could and indeed should have done the due diligence, inquired about Mr Tirant’s whereabouts and called him as a witness. I am alive to the fact that if Mr Tirant had appeared in court, it is possible that he could have corroborated the testimony of the Respondent and her mother, thereby strengthening the Respondent’s case making it highly unlikely that this piece of evidence would have changed the outcome of the case in which case the alleged perjury of the Respondent would not justify the granting of a new trial.<br /> Further the petitioner’s averments that the alleged perjury shows bad faith of the Respondent can only stand if the Petitioner had proven that the Respondent made the statement knowing it to be false, which she has not done.<br /> It is therefore not entirely clear how this new piece of evidence would support the Petitioner’s case. For the reasons cited above I find that new evidence regarding alleged perjury of the respondent does not justify granting of a new trial.  </p> <p>   Necessary for the Ends of Justice</p> <p>Since the remaining submissions of counsel for the Petitioner do not deal with the issue of new evidence, they will be considered in terms of section 194(c) in terms of which a new trial may be granted “when it appears to the court to be necessary for the ends of justice”. It is established law that a new trial under 194(c) ought not to be granted except in very special circumstances (Vide Naiken v Pillay (1968) SLR 101; Morel v Hoareau (1972) SLR 127; Pierre-Louis v Vel (MA 97/2015 (arising in CS 120/2008)) [2016] SCSC 14 (20 January 2016)).<br /> In Joanneau and others vs Government Seychelles and another (Civil Side No 12 of 2005) [2013] SCSC 60 (27 March 2013) very special circumstances were considered to be, for example, where the applicant had failed to exercise a right of appeal that was open to him.  In that case, the petitioners having successfully exercised their right of appeal and obtained final judgment in their favour, the Court declined to order a new trial.<br /> In the present case the petitioner is seeking a new trial of CS128/ 2018 but has also appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judgment rendered in the same case. The grounds of appeal as they appear in the Notice of Appeal are essentially the same grounds on which a new trial before this Court is sought.<br /> Further several issues that the petitioner has raised in support of her case for a new trial have been already been argued before and expressly dealt with by the trial judge, the then Chief Justice. For instance, the issue regarding the faxed letter and allegedly impossible grammatical mistakes therein on the ground that the Deceased was a freemason and such mistakes are “not becoming of a freemason who is supposed to memorise long tracts from the bible during the rituals of freemasonry…” is addressed at paragraphs [24]-[26] where the Learned Chief Justice concludes: </p> <p> </p> <p>… The Deceased’s writing has not been disproved …</p> <p> </p> <p>… I beg to disagree and the proof is in the letter of 2011 itself which contains several grammatical mistakes including the spelling of the word inpack as opposed to impact.  </p> <p> </p> <p>Another issue expressly dealt with by the trial judge concerns the sperm count of the Deceased and the report which the Petitioner relies heavily upon in support of her case. The then Chief Justice addresses this at paragraph [27] of her judgment as follows:</p> <p>“I note that a low sperm count in 2002 when the Deceased was 61 years does not in any way counter the evidence of the Plaintiff that she was conceived though his sexual relationship with her mother in 1972 when he was only 31 years old.”</p> <p>The judgment rendered in CS128/ 2018   is mainly based on the application of Articles 321 and 340 of the Civil Code. In my view, the findings of the learned Chief Justice based on the applicable law in light of the evidence adduced are reasonable.  Nevertheless, the Petitioner is entitled to raise these issues on appeal and whether the Learned Judge erred in law or fact should be determined by the Court of Appeal and not by way of a petition for new trial. I note that the Court of Appeal also has a power to order re-trial under section 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules, if that is found to be necessary for whatever reason.  I further note that the Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeal is handicapped in deciding the matter but has not explained why. In that respect counsel for the Respondent stated in his oral submissions</p> <p>“all of these matters that are brought up in the amended petition are matters that he can take up on appeal . . . rules of the Court of Appeal even allow him to make an application to court evidence before the Court of Appeal so all these remedies that he seeks in a new trial are available to him today . . .  he raises save for those two that I have singled out are matters that can be canvas on appeal . . . not only they can be, there are matters that should be canvassed on appeal . . . ”</p> <p>Counsel for the Petitioner is essentially making arguments similar to those made before the trial Court anew. In Hedgeintro International LTD v Hedge Funds Investment Management (Civil Appeal SCA MA05/2017) [2017] SCCA 32 (28 August 2017) the Court stated:</p> <p> “A new trial is entirely new proceedings and not an occasion for improving on an abortive trial or rectifying defects in the old proceedings. The proper approach to a new trial is to regard it as if it had been a first trial. When a trial court relies in the new trial on the entire evidence in the old trial to which some addition had been made, it cannot be said that a proper approach has been made to the new trial.” Emphasis added.</p> <p>As stated earlier, it is the Court of Appeal which should determine whether the trial Judge erred in law or the facts. Should a new trial be granted pursuant to the present application, it appears that the petitioner will rely on the entire evidence from the old trial with some additions in terms of purportedly new evidence, by essentially attempting to pursue arguments regarding alleged similarity of physiognomy and skin colour of the Respondent to Mr. Laporte. Such alleged similarity could have been discovered at the time of the old trial and it appears that the Petitioner is attempting to rectify defects in the old proceedings.<br /> The Court in  Joanneau (supra) further observed with regard to section 194(c):</p> <p>“In fact, the scope of the Section 194 (c) is frequently misunderstood and various applications are being made before our Courts under this section which does not fall within its purview. It is truism that the inherent powers of the Court are very wide. They are not in any way controlled by the provisions of the Code. They are in addition to the powers specifically conferred on the Court by the Procedure Code. The Courts are free to exercise them. The only limitation put on the exercise of the inherent power is that when exercised they are not in conflict or inconsistent with what has been expressly provided for in the Code or where specific provision does not meet the necessities of the case. In any event, the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked in order to cut across the powers of the Appellate Court, which has given its final judgment in this matter. This power can be invoked only to supplement the provisions of the Code and not to override or render the judgment of the Court of Appeal ineffective or to formulate a new case for a party, who omitted to make out his case at the Court of first instance.<br /> As a man of the world, I share the concern of Mr. Derjacques that interest of the minor children may be jeopardized if a new trial is not ordered due to legal technicality in this matter; however, as a judge I have to state that in the long run the “Rule of Law” would be jeopardized still more, if our Courts make laws for themselves in the name of equity or justice using those fancy phrases such as “in the interest of justice” or “for the ends of justice” and the like.” Emphasis added</p> <p>In my view therefore, there are no exceptional circumstances that justify the granting of a new trial in this case. A substantial part of the Petitioner’s arguments relate to issues already argued before and addressed by the trial court and as previously stated, the merits of a judgment should be addressed by the Court of Appeal and not by way of application for a new trial. In fact the Petitioner in its petition for new trial rehashes the same arguments as on appeal and appears to be simply attempting to make use of all potentially available avenues at once.<br /> As to the other issues raised by the petitioner regarding alleged breach of the Constitution, DNA testing, outdated legislation, ‘dubious judgements’, and several paternity cases being appealed against on the ground of subjective interpretation of the law, in my view, these are not issues to be determined in the present proceedings: the judgment in CS128/2018 was based on the applicable law which was the law in existence at the commencement of those proceedings.<br /> Finally, it is important to add that it is irrelevant that the answer to the petition for a new trial by the respondent was unsupported by an affidavit of facts given that the objections raised concerned points of law and matters arising at the original hearing as opposed to factual matters in the personal knowledge of the Respondent. </p> <p>Decision</p> <p>For the reasons given above, I find that the requirements for a new trial under section 194(b) and (c) have not been met. The petition for new trial is dismissed with costs.</p> <p> <br /> Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 15th December 2020<br />  <br />  <br />  <br /> ____________<br /> E. Carolus J</p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:58:30 +0000 Anonymous 5064 at http://seylii.org Essack v Morel (MA 35 of 2020) [2020] SCSC 870 (17 November 2020); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2020/870 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Essack v Morel (MA 35 of 2020) [2020] SCSC 870 (17 November 2020);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Anonymous (not verified)</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 07/01/2022 - 09:58</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p>Stay of execution of judgment pending appeal granted on condition that the whole judgment debt due at the time the judgment was delivered i.e. on 29th October 2018, be deposited in Court. In the alternative a bank guarantee in respect of the payment of the said sum, be produced to Court by the next date.</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2020/870/2020-scsc-870.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1018902">2020-scsc-870.pdf</a></span> </div> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2020/870/2020-scsc-870.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=25712">2020-scsc-870.docx</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p>BURHAN J </p> <p>This is an application by the aforementioned applicant for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal.<br /> The salient facts to the case are that judgment was given in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) on the 29th of October 2018. Thereafter, the respondent moved Court as judgment creditor for the recovery of the said debt owed to him by the judgment debtor the defendant in the main case and applicant in this application. The applicant in this application argued that he was protected by the corporate veil and moved Court that the respondent’s application for recovery of the said debt be dismissed. However by ruling dated 30th January 2020 this Court held that the applicant was personally liable. It is against this order that the applicant has now filed an appeal and seeks a stay of execution of proceedings pending determination of the appeal.<br /> It is the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Derjacques that as he has reasonable chances of success in his appeal the application for stay should be granted. It is the contention of the applicant that a special application for lifting the corporate veil should have been filed and an opportunity given to the applicant of being heard on the said issue. He further states that the applicant is 75 years old a pensioner and if he were to pay this debt and he is successful in his current appeal, then he would have to recover his money back which would take him at least another five years. <br /> Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. France Bonte opposes the application on the basis that the applicant did not prefer an appeal from the final judgment and that if a stay is to be given that the applicant (judgment debtor) deposit the money in Court and if he does so, he has no objection to a stay of execution being given pending appeal.<br /> It would be pertinent at this stage to mention that another issue arose in respect of whether learned Counsel for the applicant should have sought leave to appeal under section 12 (2) of the Courts Act, prior to filing his appeal relevant to this application. Having considered the submissions on this issue made on the 15th of October 2020 by both learned Counsel, this Court is of the view that as the final judgment has been delivered in this application, the appeal filed at this stage of proceedings, does not attract the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Courts Act, as it is not an appeal from an interlocutory order given in the hearing of the main case. Therefore the need to seek leave to appeal in an appeal preferred at this stage of proceedings does not arise, as the final judgment has already been given in this case.<br /> The general rule in an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal, is to decline a stay unless there are significant and substantially valid or strong grounds on which the applicant relies. Therefore, a stay of execution is the exception rather than the rule.<br /> In the case of Mary Geers v Noel De Lafontaine SCSC 903, MA200/2018 (arising in CS78/20115), wherein referring to Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd [1985] 2 NSWLR 685, Choppy v NSJ SC23/2011 and Chow v Bossy SC 53/2011, it was held that the considerations to be applied on an application for stay are that;</p> <p>“(a)     the onus is upon the applicant to demonstrate a proper basis for a stay which is fair to all the parties;<br /> (b)        the mere filing of an appeal does not demonstrate an appropriate case or discharge the onus;<br /> (c)        the Court has a discretion involving the weighing of considerations such as the balance of convenience and competing rights of the parties;<br /> (d)        where there is a risk that the appeal will prove abortive if the Appellant succeeds and a stay is not granted , Courts will normally exercise   their discretion in favour of a stay;<br /> (e)        the Court will not generally speculate upon the appellant’s prospect of success, but may make preliminary assessment about whether the appellant has an arguable case, in order to exclude an appeal lodged without any real prospect of success simply to gain time,<br /> (f)         As a condition for stay the Court may require payment of whole or part of the judgment sum or the provisions of security.</p> <p>Firstly, it cannot be said that the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard on this issue as on the first opportunity provided to the applicant (judgment debtor) to show cause as to why he should not pay the debt to the respondent (judgment creditor), he took up the defence that he was protected by the corporate veil and after hearing both parties on that particular issue, this Court made a ruling dated 30th January 2020 that this is a fit case for the corporate veil to be set aside. It is from this ruling that the applicant now seeks to appeal. Further it is to be noted that no appeal was preferred from the final judgment of this Court dated 29th October 2018, clearing indicating that that the applicant either agreed with the judgment or slept on the rights available to him. He cannot now suddenly awake and ask for a stay of proceedings, based on the fact that he has a reasonable chance of succeeding in appeal. His delayed appeal at this stage of proceedings, indicates that he is stalling for time, in order to prevent the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the judgment given in his favour.<br /> I have considered the balance of convenience and competing rights of the parties and conclude that the applicant has failed to satisfy Court of any good reasons why an order for stay should be made. I feel that the applicant is merely buying time and denying the respondent the possibility of enjoying the fruits of his judgment.<br /> For the aforementioned reasons, I am inclined to refuse the order for stay. However, as learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that he has no objections to the stay being given, if the applicant were to deposit the said sum in Court, this Court holds that a stay of proceedings pending appeal be granted, on condition that the whole judgment debt due at the time the judgment was delivered i.e. on 29th October 2018, be deposited in Court. In the alternative a bank guarantee in respect of the payment of the said sum, be produced to Court by the next date.<br /> If the aforementioned conditions are not adhered to, no stay of execution pending appeal is permitted and the applicant is to show cause on the next date as to why he should not be committed to civil imprisonment in default of satisfaction of the judgment debt.</p> <p> <br /> Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 17th November 2020.<br />  <br />  <br /> ____________<br /> M Burhan J</p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-9364bfb31e62ee97de3a971252bf8c9c6b574d5a898f6e6b0574c67ab528f4b6"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p>BURHAN J </p> <p>This is an application by the aforementioned applicant for stay of execution of judgment pending appeal.<br /> The salient facts to the case are that judgment was given in favour of the respondent (plaintiff) on the 29th of October 2018. Thereafter, the respondent moved Court as judgment creditor for the recovery of the said debt owed to him by the judgment debtor the defendant in the main case and applicant in this application. The applicant in this application argued that he was protected by the corporate veil and moved Court that the respondent’s application for recovery of the said debt be dismissed. However by ruling dated 30th January 2020 this Court held that the applicant was personally liable. It is against this order that the applicant has now filed an appeal and seeks a stay of execution of proceedings pending determination of the appeal.<br /> It is the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Derjacques that as he has reasonable chances of success in his appeal the application for stay should be granted. It is the contention of the applicant that a special application for lifting the corporate veil should have been filed and an opportunity given to the applicant of being heard on the said issue. He further states that the applicant is 75 years old a pensioner and if he were to pay this debt and he is successful in his current appeal, then he would have to recover his money back which would take him at least another five years. <br /> Learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. France Bonte opposes the application on the basis that the applicant did not prefer an appeal from the final judgment and that if a stay is to be given that the applicant (judgment debtor) deposit the money in Court and if he does so, he has no objection to a stay of execution being given pending appeal.<br /> It would be pertinent at this stage to mention that another issue arose in respect of whether learned Counsel for the applicant should have sought leave to appeal under section 12 (2) of the Courts Act, prior to filing his appeal relevant to this application. Having considered the submissions on this issue made on the 15th of October 2020 by both learned Counsel, this Court is of the view that as the final judgment has been delivered in this application, the appeal filed at this stage of proceedings, does not attract the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Courts Act, as it is not an appeal from an interlocutory order given in the hearing of the main case. Therefore the need to seek leave to appeal in an appeal preferred at this stage of proceedings does not arise, as the final judgment has already been given in this case.<br /> The general rule in an application for stay of proceedings pending appeal, is to decline a stay unless there are significant and substantially valid or strong grounds on which the applicant relies. Therefore, a stay of execution is the exception rather than the rule.<br /> In the case of Mary Geers v Noel De Lafontaine SCSC 903, MA200/2018 (arising in CS78/20115), wherein referring to Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd [1985] 2 NSWLR 685, Choppy v NSJ SC23/2011 and Chow v Bossy SC 53/2011, it was held that the considerations to be applied on an application for stay are that;</p> <p>“(a)     the onus is upon the applicant to demonstrate a proper basis for a stay which is fair to all the parties;<br /> (b)        the mere filing of an appeal does not demonstrate an appropriate case or discharge the onus;<br /> (c)        the Court has a discretion involving the weighing of considerations such as the balance of convenience and competing rights of the parties;<br /> (d)        where there is a risk that the appeal will prove abortive if the Appellant succeeds and a stay is not granted , Courts will normally exercise   their discretion in favour of a stay;<br /> (e)        the Court will not generally speculate upon the appellant’s prospect of success, but may make preliminary assessment about whether the appellant has an arguable case, in order to exclude an appeal lodged without any real prospect of success simply to gain time,<br /> (f)         As a condition for stay the Court may require payment of whole or part of the judgment sum or the provisions of security.</p> <p>Firstly, it cannot be said that the applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard on this issue as on the first opportunity provided to the applicant (judgment debtor) to show cause as to why he should not pay the debt to the respondent (judgment creditor), he took up the defence that he was protected by the corporate veil and after hearing both parties on that particular issue, this Court made a ruling dated 30th January 2020 that this is a fit case for the corporate veil to be set aside. It is from this ruling that the applicant now seeks to appeal. Further it is to be noted that no appeal was preferred from the final judgment of this Court dated 29th October 2018, clearing indicating that that the applicant either agreed with the judgment or slept on the rights available to him. He cannot now suddenly awake and ask for a stay of proceedings, based on the fact that he has a reasonable chance of succeeding in appeal. His delayed appeal at this stage of proceedings, indicates that he is stalling for time, in order to prevent the respondent from enjoying the fruits of the judgment given in his favour.<br /> I have considered the balance of convenience and competing rights of the parties and conclude that the applicant has failed to satisfy Court of any good reasons why an order for stay should be made. I feel that the applicant is merely buying time and denying the respondent the possibility of enjoying the fruits of his judgment.<br /> For the aforementioned reasons, I am inclined to refuse the order for stay. However, as learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that he has no objections to the stay being given, if the applicant were to deposit the said sum in Court, this Court holds that a stay of proceedings pending appeal be granted, on condition that the whole judgment debt due at the time the judgment was delivered i.e. on 29th October 2018, be deposited in Court. In the alternative a bank guarantee in respect of the payment of the said sum, be produced to Court by the next date.<br /> If the aforementioned conditions are not adhered to, no stay of execution pending appeal is permitted and the applicant is to show cause on the next date as to why he should not be committed to civil imprisonment in default of satisfaction of the judgment debt.</p> <p> <br /> Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 17th November 2020.<br />  <br />  <br /> ____________<br /> M Burhan J</p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:58:02 +0000 Anonymous 5058 at http://seylii.org H. Savy Insurance Company Limited v Ernesta & Anor (MA 152 of 2020) [2021] SCSC 7 (18 January 2021); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2021/7 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">H. Savy Insurance Company Limited v Ernesta &amp; Anor (MA 152 of 2020) [2021] SCSC 7 (18 January 2021);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Anonymous (not verified)</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 07/01/2022 - 09:56</span> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-search-summary field--type-text-with-summary field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Search summary</div> <div class="field__item"><p>Stay of execution of judgment pending appeal-section 203 of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure (Cap 213)</p> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-field-headnote-and-holding field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Headnote and holding</div> <div class="field__item"><p class="text-align-justify">The Cou11makes the following orders:</p> <p class="text-align-justify">(i) The stay application is granted subject to the compromise solution that the applicant pays into court the whole amount of the judgment award in the sum of Seychelles Rupees Two Million and Five Hundred Thousand (SCR2,500,000/) with interests and costs pending the final determination of the appeal</p> <p class="text-align-justify">(ii) The payment into court as ordered is to be effected by the 30 January 2021 and proof the payment be certified by the Registrar to this Court by the 3 February 2021 at 9: 30 a.m</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2021/7/2021-scsc-7.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=2084175">2021-scsc-7.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-0441da1de083cae52def0ac2683860dd1adb27c14e8832995b98957ad98c978d"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><iframe class="pdf" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="no" width="100%" height="800px" src="/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.seylii.org%2Ffiles%2Fjudgments%2Fscsc%2F2021%2F7%2F2021-scsc-7.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2021/7/2021-scsc-7.pdf" title="2021-scsc-7.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:56:57 +0000 Anonymous 5045 at http://seylii.org Government of Seychelles v Monthy and Ors (MC 28 of 2020) [2020] SCSC 753 (13 October 2020); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2020/753 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Government of Seychelles v Monthy and Ors (MC 28 of 2020) [2020] SCSC 753 (13 October 2020);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/142" hreflang="x-default">Criminal law</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Anonymous (not verified)</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 07/01/2022 - 09:52</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2020/753/2020-scsc-753.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=3183767">2020-scsc-753.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="clearfix text-formatted field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field__item"><p>TWOMEY CJ<br /> Background to the Application</p> <p>The Applicant has applied for orders pursuant to sections 4 and 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act (hereinafter POCA) prohibiting the Respondents or any other person specified in the orders from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the whole or any part of the property or diminishing the value of property, namely cash being SR 384,050, Euro 50, and US 20 seized from the Respondent’ home on 17 April 2020 at Roche Caiman.  The First and Second Respondents are husband and wife respectively.<br /> The present application was filed on 21 May 2020 and the Respondents represented by Learned Counsel, Mr. Clifford Andre entered appearance in the matter on 16 June 2020.  Counsel also filed a reply objecting to the Application for an interlocutory order and the appointment of a receiver.  </p> <p>The Applicant’s Affidavit and belief evidence of Superintendent Hein Prinsloo</p> <p>With respect to the Applicant, the averments of Superintendent Hein Prinsloo are to the effect that it is his belief evidence pursuant to section 9(2) of POCA that on 17 April 2020 in the vicinity of Roche Caiman, officers of the Anti-Narcotics Bureau (ANB) stopped and searched a hired car bearing registration number S28264 being a Silver Honda Fit driven by one Kevin Quatre. There was a passenger in the car, namely Steve Monthy, the First Respondent. Both persons were known to the ANB and both had previous convictions for drug trafficking. <br /> The car was searched and under the passenger seat, a piece of gold and white cigarette paper containing a beige substance was found which the ANB suspected to be heroin. The First Respondent stated that the substance was his. Subsequently, the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the substance was indeed heroin.<br /> The ANB then proceeded to 329 Bois Rouge, Roche Caiman where the Respondents live to carry out a search. During the search in the bedroom occupied by the Respondents a total sum of SR 384,050, Euro 50 and USD 20 in various denominations were found behind the headboard of the bed. The foreign exchange when converted and added to the rupees amounted to SR385,338,20.<br /> When questioned the First Respondent stated that he was spray painter and the Second Respondent that she ws unemployed. The First Respondent claimed that the cash belonged to him.<br /> Superintend Prinsloo avers that the First Respondent was convicted on 29 September 2016 of drug trafficking. A bank search subsequently carried out on the First Respondent confirmed that he did not have any bank accounts but it was discovered that the Second Respondent had a Savings Account at Nouvobanq with account number 0121019671001 and an account at ABSA which was closed in October 2019. <br /> He also avers that it was established that the Second Respondent had a business registered in her name, namely Lammis Import (Lammis) registered in 2012 with a wholesaler licence. The licence expired in 2017. Lammis has an MCB account with account number 11606 in the name of Liza Joubert trading as Lammis. The account had a negative balance until July 2019 with the last transaction captured on the account on 30 September 2019 and a closing balance of SCR181.24. No significant deposits were made in 2019.<br /> In 2020, the MCB 11606 account received seven cash deposits from January 2020 to 14 May 2020 totalling SCR69, 800. The account had a balance of SR 13,165.45 when the money ws seized by the ANB in the Respondents’ home. It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s averment that money seized by the ANB could not have come from the operation of any business by Lammis as its licence expired in November 2017.<br /> The Second Respondent had a further bank account at Nouvobanq Savings Account number 01201019671001 and had no transactions in January or February 2019. From April 2019 to December 2019 the account received small payments labelled as home carer’s salaries and pensions, which in December 2019 totalled SR 81,237.98. This account received a cash deposit of SR7, 500 on 11 October 2019 while SR 6,025.47 was withdrawn in UAE Dirhams o the same day.<br /> On 9 October 2019, the First Respondent exchanged SR25, 740.00 for USD 1,800 at a bureau de change stating that the purpose of the exchange was for local expenses. On 13 October 2019, the First Respondent sent UAE Dirhams 2,397.21(SR 9,350) via bureau de change to the First Respondent. Two card purchases for SR 713.66 and SCR521, 15 were made in UAE from the same account on 14 October 2019. It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s belief that these were for the purchase of controlled substances and that the deposit of large amounts subsequently broken into small amounts to avoid detection is a well-known money laundering tactic known as smurfing.<br /> On 5 April 2019, the First Respondent exchanged SR35, 000 for USD 2,448 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as “travel expenses” yet neither of the Respondents travelled at that time. On 27 December 2019, the First Respondent again exchanged SR37, 180 for USD2, 600 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as trade. He had no licence and nor did Lammis at the time either. On 7 January 2020, the Second Respondent exchanged SCR49, 930 for U 3, 480 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as personal expenses. The First Respondent exchanged a further SR 11,336.50 for USD790 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as “family maintenance”. It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s belief that all these are examples of money laundering to disguise the origin of the money.<br /> It is also his averment that the Second Respondent has a history of drug trafficking and the person with whom he was travelling on the day he was arrested, Quatre, was also convicted of drug trafficking on 13 July 2018 for importation of controlled drugs, trafficking in controlled drugs and conspiracy to commit an offence and was sentenced to four years imprisonment on each of these counts. <br /> It is his belief evidence therefore, that neither Respondent nor Lammis had the financial means to have such a large amount of cash or to earn the money seized by the ANB at their home. </p> <p> The First Respondent’s Counter Affidavit</p> <p>With respect to the application for the interlocutory orders by the Applicant, the Respondents have deponed in a joint affidavit that the money found in their apartment was legitimately obtained and that it had no connection with drug trafficking as the First Respondent is not currently charged with drug trafficking nor has his past conviction any relation to the money seized. They aver that Lammis is still operating and importing goods. They support this averment with release orders of goods from the Ministry of Finance imported by Lammis with the latest dated 16 October 2019 and a tax invoice in the name of the Second Respondent dated 7 March 2020. They aver that their increase in revenue was from sales made from the goods. They have also attached a credit not dated 22 February 2013 from H. Savy Insurance in respect of SR 200,000 for an injury claim and aver that the Second Respondent had been given that money as financial help from the First Respondent from this source of money. </p> <p>Supplementary Affidavit of the Applicant </p> <p>In answer to the Respondent’s cross affidavit, the Applicant through its officer, Superintendent Prinsloo has sworn a further affidavit in which he depones that the money from H. Savy Insurance was paid on 19 November 2015 and a cash deposit of only SR100, 000 was made in the MCB Account 11601 held by the Second Respondent trading as Lammis and not the full SR 200,000 as claimed. He also avers that R 275,000 arsing form another cheque from H. Savy Insurance for SCR 300,0000 was deposited in the same account in January 2015 by which time the balance in the account was only SCR4, 976.63 which indicates that the money already deposited from the First Respondent had been spent and could not therefore form part of the money seized during the search at the Respondents’’ home.  <br /> Further, after several transactions, the balance in Lammis’ account on 16 June 2015 was SR791.84 and it is impossible that the SR 385,346 found in the Respondents’’ could have originated from the insurance claim paid by H. Savy Insurance.<br /> Superintendent Prinsloo also avers that the batch of documents including those in the release orders from the Ministry of Finance amount to SR41, 122 in 2015 for imported goods, SR57, 479 in 2016, SR 46,981 in 2017 and SR 29,890 in 2018 and SR 3,379 in 2019 and SR1, 209 in 2020. After June 2015, the highest balance in Lammis account was SR14, 539,09, in 2016 the highest balance was SR21, 906.06, SR 24,773.31 in 2017, SR  9368.80 in 2018, SR 4,983.35 in 2019 and SR 45,634.45 in 2020. On 17 April 2020, when the money was seized from the Respondent’s house, Lammis’ account had a balance of only SR 13,999.45. Therefore, if Lammis imported goods for the value of SCR 3,379 in 2019 and SCR1, 209 in 2020 it was impossible that it could have made a profit of SCR385,346.30 as seized by the ANB on 17 April 2020.<br /> It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s belief that the money seized was therefore money from drug trafficking that could not be deposited in the bank.</p> <p>Cross examination of the Applicant</p> <p>Counsel for the Respondent cross-examined Superintendent Prinsloo on the manner in which he had extracted information from the Second Respondent’s bank account to form his belief evidence.  Superintendent Prinsloo explained that that was how he had carried out the analysis of the relevant accounts, as was his mandate. </p> <p>Cross examination of the First Respondent</p> <p>The First Respondent testified that the heroin found in the car on the day of the his arrest in April 2020 was his and that he had previously been convicted of drug trafficking in September 2016. He stated that the money found in their home was insurance money from a claim he had made and received in 2014 and 2015. He explained that the money he had exchanged in 2019 and 2020 was for his wife for when she travelled although he had labelled the transaction as travel expenses and had not actually travelled and another time as local expenses. <br /> He then stated that he had lent his wife the money from insurance and then she had returned it. He denied obtaining money from drug transactions. The deposits in 2019 were from the same insurance money. He cashed the cheque and kept the money with him. She sent money to his wife when she had travelled for business. He admitted he had again exchanged money in Seychelles in December 2017 after travelling home from Dubai. He was using the money to support his wife’s business together with money he was obtaining from Social Security. Similarly, when he exchanged money for dollars in January 2020 and labelled it “family maintenance” it was for the purpose of his wife’s business. He denied that he had labelled  the transactions as they appear on the bank records but rather that he had told the bank it was for his wife’s business. He reiterated that the money seized from his home was not from drugs.</p> <p>Cross examination of the Second Respondent</p> <p>It was put to the Second Respondent that the averments in the affidavit she had submitted in respect of their explanation of where the money seized from them had come from differed from the explanation the First Respondent and herself were stating in court, namely that they had first intimated that the money was from Lammis’ business and then that it was from the First Respondent’s insurance claim.<br /> She admitted that she had stated that the money was hers; she had been saving it to return it to the First Respondent. She kept it in the house although she had two bank accounts. She had been keeping money in the house since 2011 but had been saving to pay her husband back since 2017. He had first given her a lump sum of SR250, 000 for her business.<br /> When it was put to her that the bank statements showed that on 19 November 2014 only a cash deposit of SR 100,000 was paid into Lammis’ MCB 11606 account, she stated that that was the amount her husband had lent her. She had saved SR 384,050 and was going to give him his money when it was seized. She disagreed that she could not have made the savings from trading as Lammis. She also stated that the First Respondent had also sold his car and had made some money from the transaction although they had not made that averment in their affidavit.<br /> She sought to explain that although she had made purchases of SR 3379 in 2019 and SR1109, she had sold the goods to her friends and made large profits.  She admitted that this was not in Lammis’ name as its licence had long expired. Se also explained that she could not provide the documents as her friend had imported the goods for her.  </p> <p>The Applicant’s closing submissions</p> <p>In its closing submissions, the Applicant has referred the Court to the law relating to section 4 POCA applications as laid out in Financial Intelligence Unit v Contact Lenses Ltd (MC 95/2016) [2019] SCSC 564 (19 June 2018), that is, that unless the Court doubts the belief evidence of the Applicant which is reasonably made, it cannot refuse the order unless the Respondents are able to show on a balance or probabilities that the specified property retained were not from illegitimate sources. It is the Applicant’s submissions that the evidence of the Respondents in court and their affidavit evidence are far from compelling to explain the legitimacy of the source of the money seized from them. Their accounts kept changing and were not credible.<br /> No closing submissions have been forthcoming from the Respondents. </p> <p>My observations and findings</p> <p>I agree with the Applicant that the law relating to section 4 POCA applications is as stated by the Applicant. Section 9 of the POCA provides in relevant part: </p> <p>“(1) Where the Director or Deputy Director states in proceedings under section 3 or 4 on affidavit …, that he believes, that —<br />  </p> <p>the respondent is in possession or control of specified property and that the property constitutes, directly or indirectly, benefit from criminal conduct; or…</p> <p> </p> <p>the respondent is in possession or control of specified property and that the property was acquired, in whole or in part, with or in connection with property that, directly or indirectly, constitutes benefit from criminal conduct; and</p> <p> </p> <p>the value of the property or as the case may be the total value of the property referred to in both paragraphs (a) and (b) is not less than R50, 000,</p> <p> </p> <p>then, if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief aforesaid, the statement shall be evidence of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or in paragraph (b) or in both paragraphs (a) and (b), as may be appropriate, and of the value of the property.” (Emphasis added)</p> <p> </p> <p>With regard to the law and without having to rehearse the whole of the evidence adduced, the circumstances in which the money was found, the fact that the First Respondent has been convicted of drug offences, the fact that drugs were found in the car in which he was a passenger and admitted that they were his, the concealment of the large sums of money in the headboard of the Respondents’ bed when the Second Respondent had numerous bank accounts in which legitimate money could have been banked lead me to conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for the Applicant’s belief. That is prima facie evidence against the Respondents.<br /> With respect to the Respondents’ evidence, I have to be convinced on a balance of probabilities that the specified property is from legitimate sources. The averments of the Respondents and their supporting documentation are not compelling. They changed their accounts on so many occasions that it became impossible to fathom what they were stating the legitimate source of the money seized was from.<br /> It is further insulting to the court’s intelligence to hazard a response that an insurance claim paid in 2014 would still be generating profits for a business in 2020 when clearly this is not supported by the trading accounts or even an existing licence of the Second Respondent’s business.<br /> Both Respondents were not credible witnesses in Court and were evasive in the answers they provided. They have not been able to show the Court how the money seized from their home was from a legitimate source. Lammis was no longer functioning as a business, the First Respondent stated that he was not working and was even receiving money Social Security and even if the Second Respondent was trading illegally, the money used to purchase goods could not by any stretch of the imagination generate the profit she claims she had made.   <br /> In the circumstances, the application is granted. I make the following orders:</p> <p>Pursuant to section 4 of POCA I prohibit the Respondents or any other person from disposing or otherwise dealing with whole or any part of the following properties: SR 384,050.00, Euro 50, USD 20 recovered by the ANB from the Respondents’ home on 17 April 2020.<br /> Superintendent Hein Prinsloo is appointed as Receiver over all of the said properties to manage, keep possession or dispose of, or otherwise deal with the property in respect of which he is appointed pursuant to section 8 of POCA.</p> <p>Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 13 October 2020.<br />  <br />  <br />  <br />  <br /> ____________           <br /> M. Twomey<br /> Chief Justice<br />  </p> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-768a052970f42cd61efe01fe94b9531aed17ed66da11a9b994b1f210e7c1683f"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p>TWOMEY CJ<br /> Background to the Application</p> <p>The Applicant has applied for orders pursuant to sections 4 and 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Civil Confiscation) Act (hereinafter POCA) prohibiting the Respondents or any other person specified in the orders from disposing of or otherwise dealing with the whole or any part of the property or diminishing the value of property, namely cash being SR 384,050, Euro 50, and US 20 seized from the Respondent’ home on 17 April 2020 at Roche Caiman.  The First and Second Respondents are husband and wife respectively.<br /> The present application was filed on 21 May 2020 and the Respondents represented by Learned Counsel, Mr. Clifford Andre entered appearance in the matter on 16 June 2020.  Counsel also filed a reply objecting to the Application for an interlocutory order and the appointment of a receiver.  </p> <p>The Applicant’s Affidavit and belief evidence of Superintendent Hein Prinsloo</p> <p>With respect to the Applicant, the averments of Superintendent Hein Prinsloo are to the effect that it is his belief evidence pursuant to section 9(2) of POCA that on 17 April 2020 in the vicinity of Roche Caiman, officers of the Anti-Narcotics Bureau (ANB) stopped and searched a hired car bearing registration number S28264 being a Silver Honda Fit driven by one Kevin Quatre. There was a passenger in the car, namely Steve Monthy, the First Respondent. Both persons were known to the ANB and both had previous convictions for drug trafficking. <br /> The car was searched and under the passenger seat, a piece of gold and white cigarette paper containing a beige substance was found which the ANB suspected to be heroin. The First Respondent stated that the substance was his. Subsequently, the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the substance was indeed heroin.<br /> The ANB then proceeded to 329 Bois Rouge, Roche Caiman where the Respondents live to carry out a search. During the search in the bedroom occupied by the Respondents a total sum of SR 384,050, Euro 50 and USD 20 in various denominations were found behind the headboard of the bed. The foreign exchange when converted and added to the rupees amounted to SR385,338,20.<br /> When questioned the First Respondent stated that he was spray painter and the Second Respondent that she ws unemployed. The First Respondent claimed that the cash belonged to him.<br /> Superintend Prinsloo avers that the First Respondent was convicted on 29 September 2016 of drug trafficking. A bank search subsequently carried out on the First Respondent confirmed that he did not have any bank accounts but it was discovered that the Second Respondent had a Savings Account at Nouvobanq with account number 0121019671001 and an account at ABSA which was closed in October 2019. <br /> He also avers that it was established that the Second Respondent had a business registered in her name, namely Lammis Import (Lammis) registered in 2012 with a wholesaler licence. The licence expired in 2017. Lammis has an MCB account with account number 11606 in the name of Liza Joubert trading as Lammis. The account had a negative balance until July 2019 with the last transaction captured on the account on 30 September 2019 and a closing balance of SCR181.24. No significant deposits were made in 2019.<br /> In 2020, the MCB 11606 account received seven cash deposits from January 2020 to 14 May 2020 totalling SCR69, 800. The account had a balance of SR 13,165.45 when the money ws seized by the ANB in the Respondents’ home. It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s averment that money seized by the ANB could not have come from the operation of any business by Lammis as its licence expired in November 2017.<br /> The Second Respondent had a further bank account at Nouvobanq Savings Account number 01201019671001 and had no transactions in January or February 2019. From April 2019 to December 2019 the account received small payments labelled as home carer’s salaries and pensions, which in December 2019 totalled SR 81,237.98. This account received a cash deposit of SR7, 500 on 11 October 2019 while SR 6,025.47 was withdrawn in UAE Dirhams o the same day.<br /> On 9 October 2019, the First Respondent exchanged SR25, 740.00 for USD 1,800 at a bureau de change stating that the purpose of the exchange was for local expenses. On 13 October 2019, the First Respondent sent UAE Dirhams 2,397.21(SR 9,350) via bureau de change to the First Respondent. Two card purchases for SR 713.66 and SCR521, 15 were made in UAE from the same account on 14 October 2019. It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s belief that these were for the purchase of controlled substances and that the deposit of large amounts subsequently broken into small amounts to avoid detection is a well-known money laundering tactic known as smurfing.<br /> On 5 April 2019, the First Respondent exchanged SR35, 000 for USD 2,448 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as “travel expenses” yet neither of the Respondents travelled at that time. On 27 December 2019, the First Respondent again exchanged SR37, 180 for USD2, 600 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as trade. He had no licence and nor did Lammis at the time either. On 7 January 2020, the Second Respondent exchanged SCR49, 930 for U 3, 480 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as personal expenses. The First Respondent exchanged a further SR 11,336.50 for USD790 with the purpose of the transaction recorded as “family maintenance”. It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s belief that all these are examples of money laundering to disguise the origin of the money.<br /> It is also his averment that the Second Respondent has a history of drug trafficking and the person with whom he was travelling on the day he was arrested, Quatre, was also convicted of drug trafficking on 13 July 2018 for importation of controlled drugs, trafficking in controlled drugs and conspiracy to commit an offence and was sentenced to four years imprisonment on each of these counts. <br /> It is his belief evidence therefore, that neither Respondent nor Lammis had the financial means to have such a large amount of cash or to earn the money seized by the ANB at their home. </p> <p> The First Respondent’s Counter Affidavit</p> <p>With respect to the application for the interlocutory orders by the Applicant, the Respondents have deponed in a joint affidavit that the money found in their apartment was legitimately obtained and that it had no connection with drug trafficking as the First Respondent is not currently charged with drug trafficking nor has his past conviction any relation to the money seized. They aver that Lammis is still operating and importing goods. They support this averment with release orders of goods from the Ministry of Finance imported by Lammis with the latest dated 16 October 2019 and a tax invoice in the name of the Second Respondent dated 7 March 2020. They aver that their increase in revenue was from sales made from the goods. They have also attached a credit not dated 22 February 2013 from H. Savy Insurance in respect of SR 200,000 for an injury claim and aver that the Second Respondent had been given that money as financial help from the First Respondent from this source of money. </p> <p>Supplementary Affidavit of the Applicant </p> <p>In answer to the Respondent’s cross affidavit, the Applicant through its officer, Superintendent Prinsloo has sworn a further affidavit in which he depones that the money from H. Savy Insurance was paid on 19 November 2015 and a cash deposit of only SR100, 000 was made in the MCB Account 11601 held by the Second Respondent trading as Lammis and not the full SR 200,000 as claimed. He also avers that R 275,000 arsing form another cheque from H. Savy Insurance for SCR 300,0000 was deposited in the same account in January 2015 by which time the balance in the account was only SCR4, 976.63 which indicates that the money already deposited from the First Respondent had been spent and could not therefore form part of the money seized during the search at the Respondents’’ home.  <br /> Further, after several transactions, the balance in Lammis’ account on 16 June 2015 was SR791.84 and it is impossible that the SR 385,346 found in the Respondents’’ could have originated from the insurance claim paid by H. Savy Insurance.<br /> Superintendent Prinsloo also avers that the batch of documents including those in the release orders from the Ministry of Finance amount to SR41, 122 in 2015 for imported goods, SR57, 479 in 2016, SR 46,981 in 2017 and SR 29,890 in 2018 and SR 3,379 in 2019 and SR1, 209 in 2020. After June 2015, the highest balance in Lammis account was SR14, 539,09, in 2016 the highest balance was SR21, 906.06, SR 24,773.31 in 2017, SR  9368.80 in 2018, SR 4,983.35 in 2019 and SR 45,634.45 in 2020. On 17 April 2020, when the money was seized from the Respondent’s house, Lammis’ account had a balance of only SR 13,999.45. Therefore, if Lammis imported goods for the value of SCR 3,379 in 2019 and SCR1, 209 in 2020 it was impossible that it could have made a profit of SCR385,346.30 as seized by the ANB on 17 April 2020.<br /> It is Superintendent Prinsloo’s belief that the money seized was therefore money from drug trafficking that could not be deposited in the bank.</p> <p>Cross examination of the Applicant</p> <p>Counsel for the Respondent cross-examined Superintendent Prinsloo on the manner in which he had extracted information from the Second Respondent’s bank account to form his belief evidence.  Superintendent Prinsloo explained that that was how he had carried out the analysis of the relevant accounts, as was his mandate. </p> <p>Cross examination of the First Respondent</p> <p>The First Respondent testified that the heroin found in the car on the day of the his arrest in April 2020 was his and that he had previously been convicted of drug trafficking in September 2016. He stated that the money found in their home was insurance money from a claim he had made and received in 2014 and 2015. He explained that the money he had exchanged in 2019 and 2020 was for his wife for when she travelled although he had labelled the transaction as travel expenses and had not actually travelled and another time as local expenses. <br /> He then stated that he had lent his wife the money from insurance and then she had returned it. He denied obtaining money from drug transactions. The deposits in 2019 were from the same insurance money. He cashed the cheque and kept the money with him. She sent money to his wife when she had travelled for business. He admitted he had again exchanged money in Seychelles in December 2017 after travelling home from Dubai. He was using the money to support his wife’s business together with money he was obtaining from Social Security. Similarly, when he exchanged money for dollars in January 2020 and labelled it “family maintenance” it was for the purpose of his wife’s business. He denied that he had labelled  the transactions as they appear on the bank records but rather that he had told the bank it was for his wife’s business. He reiterated that the money seized from his home was not from drugs.</p> <p>Cross examination of the Second Respondent</p> <p>It was put to the Second Respondent that the averments in the affidavit she had submitted in respect of their explanation of where the money seized from them had come from differed from the explanation the First Respondent and herself were stating in court, namely that they had first intimated that the money was from Lammis’ business and then that it was from the First Respondent’s insurance claim.<br /> She admitted that she had stated that the money was hers; she had been saving it to return it to the First Respondent. She kept it in the house although she had two bank accounts. She had been keeping money in the house since 2011 but had been saving to pay her husband back since 2017. He had first given her a lump sum of SR250, 000 for her business.<br /> When it was put to her that the bank statements showed that on 19 November 2014 only a cash deposit of SR 100,000 was paid into Lammis’ MCB 11606 account, she stated that that was the amount her husband had lent her. She had saved SR 384,050 and was going to give him his money when it was seized. She disagreed that she could not have made the savings from trading as Lammis. She also stated that the First Respondent had also sold his car and had made some money from the transaction although they had not made that averment in their affidavit.<br /> She sought to explain that although she had made purchases of SR 3379 in 2019 and SR1109, she had sold the goods to her friends and made large profits.  She admitted that this was not in Lammis’ name as its licence had long expired. Se also explained that she could not provide the documents as her friend had imported the goods for her.  </p> <p>The Applicant’s closing submissions</p> <p>In its closing submissions, the Applicant has referred the Court to the law relating to section 4 POCA applications as laid out in Financial Intelligence Unit v Contact Lenses Ltd (MC 95/2016) [2019] SCSC 564 (19 June 2018), that is, that unless the Court doubts the belief evidence of the Applicant which is reasonably made, it cannot refuse the order unless the Respondents are able to show on a balance or probabilities that the specified property retained were not from illegitimate sources. It is the Applicant’s submissions that the evidence of the Respondents in court and their affidavit evidence are far from compelling to explain the legitimacy of the source of the money seized from them. Their accounts kept changing and were not credible.<br /> No closing submissions have been forthcoming from the Respondents. </p> <p>My observations and findings</p> <p>I agree with the Applicant that the law relating to section 4 POCA applications is as stated by the Applicant. Section 9 of the POCA provides in relevant part: </p> <p>“(1) Where the Director or Deputy Director states in proceedings under section 3 or 4 on affidavit …, that he believes, that —<br />  </p> <p>the respondent is in possession or control of specified property and that the property constitutes, directly or indirectly, benefit from criminal conduct; or…</p> <p> </p> <p>the respondent is in possession or control of specified property and that the property was acquired, in whole or in part, with or in connection with property that, directly or indirectly, constitutes benefit from criminal conduct; and</p> <p> </p> <p>the value of the property or as the case may be the total value of the property referred to in both paragraphs (a) and (b) is not less than R50, 000,</p> <p> </p> <p>then, if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the belief aforesaid, the statement shall be evidence of the matters referred to in paragraph (a) or in paragraph (b) or in both paragraphs (a) and (b), as may be appropriate, and of the value of the property.” (Emphasis added)</p> <p> </p> <p>With regard to the law and without having to rehearse the whole of the evidence adduced, the circumstances in which the money was found, the fact that the First Respondent has been convicted of drug offences, the fact that drugs were found in the car in which he was a passenger and admitted that they were his, the concealment of the large sums of money in the headboard of the Respondents’ bed when the Second Respondent had numerous bank accounts in which legitimate money could have been banked lead me to conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for the Applicant’s belief. That is prima facie evidence against the Respondents.<br /> With respect to the Respondents’ evidence, I have to be convinced on a balance of probabilities that the specified property is from legitimate sources. The averments of the Respondents and their supporting documentation are not compelling. They changed their accounts on so many occasions that it became impossible to fathom what they were stating the legitimate source of the money seized was from.<br /> It is further insulting to the court’s intelligence to hazard a response that an insurance claim paid in 2014 would still be generating profits for a business in 2020 when clearly this is not supported by the trading accounts or even an existing licence of the Second Respondent’s business.<br /> Both Respondents were not credible witnesses in Court and were evasive in the answers they provided. They have not been able to show the Court how the money seized from their home was from a legitimate source. Lammis was no longer functioning as a business, the First Respondent stated that he was not working and was even receiving money Social Security and even if the Second Respondent was trading illegally, the money used to purchase goods could not by any stretch of the imagination generate the profit she claims she had made.   <br /> In the circumstances, the application is granted. I make the following orders:</p> <p>Pursuant to section 4 of POCA I prohibit the Respondents or any other person from disposing or otherwise dealing with whole or any part of the following properties: SR 384,050.00, Euro 50, USD 20 recovered by the ANB from the Respondents’ home on 17 April 2020.<br /> Superintendent Hein Prinsloo is appointed as Receiver over all of the said properties to manage, keep possession or dispose of, or otherwise deal with the property in respect of which he is appointed pursuant to section 8 of POCA.</p> <p>Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 13 October 2020.<br />  <br />  <br />  <br />  <br /> ____________           <br /> M. Twomey<br /> Chief Justice<br />  </p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:52:43 +0000 Anonymous 4999 at http://seylii.org Iliescu v Petrescu (MC 101 of 2019) [2020] SCSC 758 (15 October 2020); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2020/758 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Iliescu v Petrescu (MC 101 of 2019) [2020] SCSC 758 (15 October 2020);</span> <div class="field field--name-field-flynote field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Flynote</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"><a href="/taxonomy/term/121" hreflang="x-default">Civil Procedure</a></div> </div> </div> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Anonymous (not verified)</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 07/01/2022 - 09:52</span> <div class="field field--name-field-files field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field__label">Download</div> <div class='field__items'> <div class="field__item"> <span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2020/758/2020-scsc-758.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1595021">2020-scsc-758.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="views-element-container"><div class="view view-eva view-download-conditional view-id-download_conditional view-display-id-entity_view_1 js-view-dom-id-5143b221896a441da303c1b0366d52aba3bd0586e51a33ee0762910ff6f83a4b"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><iframe class="pdf" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="no" width="100%" height="800px" src="/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.seylii.org%2Ffiles%2Fjudgments%2Fscsc%2F2020%2F758%2F2020-scsc-758.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2020/758/2020-scsc-758.pdf" title="2020-scsc-758.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 01 Jul 2022 09:52:30 +0000 Anonymous 4996 at http://seylii.org