Supreme Court http://seylii.org/ en Government of Seychelles v Monthy & Anor (MA 182 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 983 (11 November 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/983 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Government of Seychelles v Monthy &amp; Anor (MA 182 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 983 (11 November 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 10:33</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/2022/983/2022-scsc-983.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=883071">2022-scsc-983.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-c98993ee7757d0815ecd6df4a6501c6e168b0ed6733c6f8b58721e4ed3ecc344"> <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%2F2022%2F983%2F2022-scsc-983.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/983/2022-scsc-983.pdf" title="2022-scsc-983.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:33:01 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5803 at http://seylii.org Ex Parte: Edmund Vickers (XP 246 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 982 (11 November 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/982 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Ex Parte: Edmund Vickers (XP 246 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 982 (11 November 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 10:26</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>Application for Adhoc Admission pursuant to section 12 of the Legal Practitioner's Act</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/2022/982/2022-scsc-982.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=880335">2022-scsc-982.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-d81b7f900681f177f3ef6a75dfb9c481ac1e96e02901b9cdefb9761293f1b4fc"> <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%2F2022%2F982%2F2022-scsc-982.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/982/2022-scsc-982.pdf" title="2022-scsc-982.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:26:46 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5802 at http://seylii.org Anti Corruption Commission of Seychelles v Valabhji & Ors (CO 114 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 981 (10 November 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/981 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Anti Corruption Commission of Seychelles v Valabhji &amp; Ors (CO 114 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 981 (10 November 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 10:20</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>Legal fees can be disbursed from both the private accounts of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> accused and company’s account in which they hold beneficial interests, provided conditions are met. Legal invoices presented for payment has to be sufficiently particularised.</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/2022/981/2022-scsc-981.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1625604">2022-scsc-981.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/2022/981/2022-scsc-981.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=25228">2022-scsc-981.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:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>GOVINDEN CJ</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I have read the letter of Ms Samantha Aglae Attorney of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused entitled “RE PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES FOR MUKESH VALABHJI AND LAURA VALABHJI” and its attachment dated the 21<sup>st</sup> October 2022.  I have also read the letter bearing the same reference from the Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles and its attachments, dated the 3<sup>rd</sup> November 2022 and that of Mr France Bonte bearing the same title dated the 3<sup>rd</sup> November 2022.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I have also carefully scrutinized the submissions of all counsels in this case on the subject matter of payment of legal fees of Mr and Mrs Valabhji.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Court proceeded to hear the matter in issue based on the exchange of letters, given that there is apparently no contention on the facts in issue and also based upon the agreement of parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the specific issues that has arisen with regards to the issues of payment of the fees of the accused of both the 1<sup>st</sup> Accused and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused in this case and the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused in CR04 of 2021.  For the purpose of which I will refer to them as the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused in this ruling.  The Court considers that the only issue that is left for determination is a narrow one namely whether or not the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused can present invoices for payment of their legal fees to a legal entity and what form the invoices should be presented.  It is to be noted that there is no contentions with regards to presentation of bills and invoices for payment from accounts held in the names of the 2 persons.  Though apparently no such requests has apparently been made so far with respect to their local personal accounts.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">According to the facts presented before me and admitted before the court there is one new payment particular legal entity that is a subject matter of contention, that is the Felicite Island Development Ltd.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The ACCS has issued a number of section 60(1) orders against the account of local entities and companies in which the accused has financial interest and private individual accounts held in their names.  The notices are issues under section 60(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act.  It allows the ACCS to act as the “administrator” of the account of the entities and the individuals.  Under section 60(6) of the Act, a person aggrieved with the directive of the commissioner under section 60(1) may however apply to the Supreme Court for an order to reverse or vary the directive.  On hearing of the application and the reply of the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles this court can either confirm the notice or otherwise reverse or vary the directive in the notice.  Hence a section 60(1) notice with regards to a bank account can be varied by the Supreme Court in respect of the restriction of disbursement of any expense including that of legal fees of a person whose account is subject to the restriction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">On the other hand, Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution provides, inter-alia, that a person has a right to be defended before the court in person or, at the person’s own expense by a legal practitioner of the person’s own choice.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is important to understand what is meant by the terms “<i>at his own expense here</i>”.  To this court this simply means at the person’s own cost. He or she will have to use their own resources and means in order to finance the legal practitioner of their own choosing.  Now, somebody’s financial resources and means maybe in many forms.  They can be in many places also.  They can be one’s moveable and immovable properties.  Once moveable property may on the other hand be found in one’s private account or in one investments such as shares and debentures in companies and other similar entities.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">When one read these firmly established legal principles together it is clear to me that the choice of whom becomes one’s legal practitioner is that of the accused and the accused alone.  The cost and expenditure of the same legal practitioner would also be that of the accused and the accused alone.  If this is their choice.  Therefore, when it comes to payment of legal fees from accounts that has been subject matter of a section 60(1) order, the ACCS obligation is to allow for payment of all expenses that is bona fide demanded for legal services rendered by an attorney at law or legal practitioner of the accused choice. The invoices and bills of the legal practitioner has to be sufficiently particularised so as to allow the ACCS to know who is the attorney at law who is demanding payment and for what services are the payments being requested for. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the event that the ACCS refuses to vary the section 60(1) restrictions in order to allow for the settlement of the legal bills the Supreme Court can be asked by the accused to adjudicate on the refusal to vary.  This applies to both private accounts or corporate accounts or accounts of legal entities in which the accused has interest.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In this case it appears that there have been divergent views with regards to the payment of attorney’s fees between the ACCS and the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> accused.  However, unfortunately no attempts have been made by the Accused up to now to apply to the court for variation of the relevant section 60(1) order, something that could have settled this matter. Instead they chose to approach the subject matter by way of a letter to the Chief Justice in chambers which obviously is not the most appropriate procedure.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">According to Mrs Valabhji in her submission Ms Samantha Aglae intentionally wrote a letter to the Chief Justice instead of applying for variation under section 60(6) of the ACCS’s decision because they wanted to establish the foundation in order to file a constitutional petition against the ACCs for failure to comply with their rights to counsel.  The court finds this highly irregular and amounts to an overt intention to circumvent the law and it also amounts to a failure to exhaust the available remedies provided in law.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The main bones of contention in this matter appears first with the regards to the form that a bill or invoice should be presented and in the sufficiency of particularisation of those documents presented by a legal firm of the accused and attorney at law. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Secondly, the legality of the accused presenting legal bills and invoices for payment to companies and legal entities.  It is the contention of the ACCS that these invoices should be paid from the private accounts of the accused when it comes to the second issue and with regards to the first that the invoices are insufficiently particularized.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having considered the law and the facts and circumstances involved in this matter this court determines as follows on these points.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As regards to the position by the ACCS in respect of the payment of the legal bills and invoices by companies the court will not agree with its position.  The accused would be entitled to pay a legal bill or invoice from monies in an account of a legal entity or company in which they hold financial interest and subject to the limits of those interest and the applicability of the provisions of statutes including the Companies Act.  This is subject to the following conditions:-</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The accused must demonstrate that they have proprietary interest in the legal entity or company against which account the bill is presented for payment.  If the ACCS has section 60(1) notice issued against the account of that entity a prima facie case of such an interest will be established.  </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The bill or invoice presented must be with regards to a bona fide legal service to be rendered in the case of a retainer fee or having been rendered by the legal practitioner or legal firm.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">That there is compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, with regards to the decision to settle the payment by the legal entity or company.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">If the funds acquired from the legal entity or company belongs to the 1<sup>st</sup> Accused alone he would be entitled to decide as to whether he is going to share it with the 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused and vice versa.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the event that those conditions are met the bills and invoices should be payable.  Therefore, I find that payments can be made from any account whether that of the private accounts of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused or that of an entity or company in which any or both of them has interest, subject to the above.  In the event of disagreements, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused may apply for variation in pursuance to section 60(6) of the Anti-Corruption Act.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As regards to the form of a legal invoice or bill, the ACCS is right to determine that this has to be particularised in greater details so as to satisfy each of the genuineness of the claim.  The name of the legal firm or attorney at law has to be indicated.  The period for which the claim is being made has also to be indicated.  The legal services rendered or to be rendered has to be sufficiently particularised.  Those are questions of facts that has to be decided on a case to case basis.  Any disagreement here can also be the subject matter of a section 60(6) application by the aggravated parties.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">This is the decision of the court.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:106%"><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:106%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on          day of                             2022.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:106%"><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:106%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">____________</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:106%"><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:106%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Govinden CJ</span></span></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-31230e55e2f76654972becf6889ec6d6c676756dab9e481aff3ec989fe5e83be"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>GOVINDEN CJ</b></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I have read the letter of Ms Samantha Aglae Attorney of the 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused entitled “RE PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES FOR MUKESH VALABHJI AND LAURA VALABHJI” and its attachment dated the 21<sup>st</sup> October 2022.  I have also read the letter bearing the same reference from the Commissioner of the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles and its attachments, dated the 3<sup>rd</sup> November 2022 and that of Mr France Bonte bearing the same title dated the 3<sup>rd</sup> November 2022.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I have also carefully scrutinized the submissions of all counsels in this case on the subject matter of payment of legal fees of Mr and Mrs Valabhji.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Court proceeded to hear the matter in issue based on the exchange of letters, given that there is apparently no contention on the facts in issue and also based upon the agreement of parties.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and the specific issues that has arisen with regards to the issues of payment of the fees of the accused of both the 1<sup>st</sup> Accused and the 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused in this case and the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused in CR04 of 2021.  For the purpose of which I will refer to them as the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused in this ruling.  The Court considers that the only issue that is left for determination is a narrow one namely whether or not the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused can present invoices for payment of their legal fees to a legal entity and what form the invoices should be presented.  It is to be noted that there is no contentions with regards to presentation of bills and invoices for payment from accounts held in the names of the 2 persons.  Though apparently no such requests has apparently been made so far with respect to their local personal accounts.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">According to the facts presented before me and admitted before the court there is one new payment particular legal entity that is a subject matter of contention, that is the Felicite Island Development Ltd.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The ACCS has issued a number of section 60(1) orders against the account of local entities and companies in which the accused has financial interest and private individual accounts held in their names.  The notices are issues under section 60(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act.  It allows the ACCS to act as the “administrator” of the account of the entities and the individuals.  Under section 60(6) of the Act, a person aggrieved with the directive of the commissioner under section 60(1) may however apply to the Supreme Court for an order to reverse or vary the directive.  On hearing of the application and the reply of the Anti-Corruption Commission of Seychelles this court can either confirm the notice or otherwise reverse or vary the directive in the notice.  Hence a section 60(1) notice with regards to a bank account can be varied by the Supreme Court in respect of the restriction of disbursement of any expense including that of legal fees of a person whose account is subject to the restriction.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">On the other hand, Article 19(2)(d) of the Constitution provides, inter-alia, that a person has a right to be defended before the court in person or, at the person’s own expense by a legal practitioner of the person’s own choice.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">It is important to understand what is meant by the terms “<i>at his own expense here</i>”.  To this court this simply means at the person’s own cost. He or she will have to use their own resources and means in order to finance the legal practitioner of their own choosing.  Now, somebody’s financial resources and means maybe in many forms.  They can be in many places also.  They can be one’s moveable and immovable properties.  Once moveable property may on the other hand be found in one’s private account or in one investments such as shares and debentures in companies and other similar entities.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">When one read these firmly established legal principles together it is clear to me that the choice of whom becomes one’s legal practitioner is that of the accused and the accused alone.  The cost and expenditure of the same legal practitioner would also be that of the accused and the accused alone.  If this is their choice.  Therefore, when it comes to payment of legal fees from accounts that has been subject matter of a section 60(1) order, the ACCS obligation is to allow for payment of all expenses that is bona fide demanded for legal services rendered by an attorney at law or legal practitioner of the accused choice. The invoices and bills of the legal practitioner has to be sufficiently particularised so as to allow the ACCS to know who is the attorney at law who is demanding payment and for what services are the payments being requested for. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the event that the ACCS refuses to vary the section 60(1) restrictions in order to allow for the settlement of the legal bills the Supreme Court can be asked by the accused to adjudicate on the refusal to vary.  This applies to both private accounts or corporate accounts or accounts of legal entities in which the accused has interest.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In this case it appears that there have been divergent views with regards to the payment of attorney’s fees between the ACCS and the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> accused.  However, unfortunately no attempts have been made by the Accused up to now to apply to the court for variation of the relevant section 60(1) order, something that could have settled this matter. Instead they chose to approach the subject matter by way of a letter to the Chief Justice in chambers which obviously is not the most appropriate procedure.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">According to Mrs Valabhji in her submission Ms Samantha Aglae intentionally wrote a letter to the Chief Justice instead of applying for variation under section 60(6) of the ACCS’s decision because they wanted to establish the foundation in order to file a constitutional petition against the ACCs for failure to comply with their rights to counsel.  The court finds this highly irregular and amounts to an overt intention to circumvent the law and it also amounts to a failure to exhaust the available remedies provided in law.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The main bones of contention in this matter appears first with the regards to the form that a bill or invoice should be presented and in the sufficiency of particularisation of those documents presented by a legal firm of the accused and attorney at law. </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Secondly, the legality of the accused presenting legal bills and invoices for payment to companies and legal entities.  It is the contention of the ACCS that these invoices should be paid from the private accounts of the accused when it comes to the second issue and with regards to the first that the invoices are insufficiently particularized.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having considered the law and the facts and circumstances involved in this matter this court determines as follows on these points.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:32px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As regards to the position by the ACCS in respect of the payment of the legal bills and invoices by companies the court will not agree with its position.  The accused would be entitled to pay a legal bill or invoice from monies in an account of a legal entity or company in which they hold financial interest and subject to the limits of those interest and the applicability of the provisions of statutes including the Companies Act.  This is subject to the following conditions:-</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The accused must demonstrate that they have proprietary interest in the legal entity or company against which account the bill is presented for payment.  If the ACCS has section 60(1) notice issued against the account of that entity a prima facie case of such an interest will be established.  </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The bill or invoice presented must be with regards to a bona fide legal service to be rendered in the case of a retainer fee or having been rendered by the legal practitioner or legal firm.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">That there is compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, with regards to the decision to settle the payment by the legal entity or company.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:56px; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">If the funds acquired from the legal entity or company belongs to the 1<sup>st</sup> Accused alone he would be entitled to decide as to whether he is going to share it with the 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused and vice versa.</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">In the event that those conditions are met the bills and invoices should be payable.  Therefore, I find that payments can be made from any account whether that of the private accounts of the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused or that of an entity or company in which any or both of them has interest, subject to the above.  In the event of disagreements, the 1<sup>st</sup> and 2<sup>nd</sup> Accused may apply for variation in pursuance to section 60(6) of the Anti-Corruption Act.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As regards to the form of a legal invoice or bill, the ACCS is right to determine that this has to be particularised in greater details so as to satisfy each of the genuineness of the claim.  The name of the legal firm or attorney at law has to be indicated.  The period for which the claim is being made has also to be indicated.  The legal services rendered or to be rendered has to be sufficiently particularised.  Those are questions of facts that has to be decided on a case to case basis.  Any disagreement here can also be the subject matter of a section 60(6) application by the aggravated parties.  </span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">This is the decision of the court.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:106%"><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:106%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on          day of                             2022.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:106%"><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:106%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">____________</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:106%"><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:106%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Govinden CJ</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:20:02 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5801 at http://seylii.org Gregoire’s Company Ltd v Attorney General (MC 27 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 979 (10 November 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/979 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Gregoire’s Company Ltd v Attorney General (MC 27 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 979 (10 November 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 10:13</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/2022/979/2022-scsc-979.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=27013">2022-scsc-979.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/2022/979/2022-scsc-979.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=2394821">2022-scsc-979.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:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>DODIN J</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">This is a Petition for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to rule 2 of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The brief facts giving leading to the filing of this Petition are that one Brigitte Payet filed an application out of time claiming unfair dismissal, ill-treatment and unpaid salary by the Petitioner before the Ministry of Employment, Immigration and Civil Status. The said Miss Payet gave the reason for filing her grievance outside the prescribed 14 days period as having been in poor health. The Competent Officer accepted her reasons and allowed the grievance to be filed out of time. The Petitioner objected to the decision of the Competent Officer and appealed the same raising several issues which tend to show that the reasons given by Miss Payet were false since during the period she is alleged to have been of ill-health she was seen at a party, she appeared before Court and the Registration Division in other matters. On appeal, the decision to allow the grievance to proceed out of time was maintained. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Petitioner then filed for judicial review of that decision raising the following grounds:    </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">1.         The Decision was procedurally improper in that:</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">a.  It did not state the reasons why the failure to register the grievance out of time was not the fault of the Complainant;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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.  It did not disclose the evidence used by the Complainant to justify her application to register the grievance out of time thus denying the Petitioner an opportunity to have all the facts and evidence for the Appeal.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">2.         The Decision was unreasonable in that it failed to give comprehensive and clear reasoning for the outcome reached, simply stating arbitrarily that the ‘circumstances surrounding the delay are not all due to the fault of [the Complainant]’ without delving into what those circumstances are.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">3.         The Decision was irrational in that the Petitioner attached clear evidence to the Appeal of the Complainant’s disingenuity about her personal circumstances and health which affected her ability to file the grievance within time, but this was not considered or addressed whatsoever by the Respondent in the Decision or at all.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpLast" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Petitioner moves the Court for the following remedies: </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">a.        to grant the Petitioner leave to proceed with this Petition;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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.        to direct the Respondent to disclose to the Petitioner all records and documents related and incidental to the Decision;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">c.        to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Decision;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">d.        to make any order it deems fit and appropriate in all the circumstances of this case; and </span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt 72.0pt 129.0pt"><i><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;">e.        costs.          </span></span></span></i></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpLast" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="JudgmentTextCxSpFirst"><span style="tab-stops:55.5pt">The Respondent objected to the petition for judicial review raising the following grounds of objection:</span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentTextCxSpLast"><span style="tab-stops:55.5pt">       </span></p> <p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">1.         Non-joinder of party:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">That the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and directly affected party.  Ms. Brigitte Payet (the Complainant), General Manager of La Digue Island Lodge and an Executive Director of Gregoire’s Company (Pty) Ltd. who has lodged a grievance against the Company/Petitioner herein of unfair dismissal, ill treatment and unpaid salary at the Employment Department, Ministry of Employment, Immigration and Civil Status on the 8<sup>th</sup> September 2020 is not arrayed as a party to this petition.  Secondly, the directly affected party is the Complainant Ms. Payet who will be directed affected or have a bearing by the outcome of this proceeding. The instant petition therefore must be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and directly affected parties at the very outset.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">2.         Bad faith:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">The non-joinder of the Complainant by the Petitioner in a Judicial Review Petition that will have a direct effect on her and her grievance against the Company is Bad faith warranting rejection of leave to proceed with the Judicial Review.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">3.         Breach of Rule 6(1):  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">By this deliberate action of not joining the Complainant as party to this petition, the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that there is no bad faith in instituting the instant petition or in other words that the petition was made in good faith as per <b>Rule 6(1) </b>of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">4.         Breach of Rule 2(2):  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">That Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules mandates a certified copy of the decision/order that is sought to be canvassed, be annexed to the Petition.  There is no certified copy of the impugned decision being canvassed annexed to this instant petition.  On this breach of Rule 2(2) itself the petition must be dismissed.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">5.         Reasonableness in decision making and no procedural impropriety:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">Both parties were given equal opportunity to be heard, adduced relevant evidence before the Employment Advisory Board and on being satisfied passed its Ruling/Annexure R/5 and advised the Minster accordingly.  Thereafter, the Minister on careful consideration of the appeal, relevant evidence adduced and on the advice of the Employment Advisory Board upheld the Decision of the Competent Authority to condone delay and registered the Grievance.  Reason is given in arriving at the impugned Decision that the circumstances surrounding the delay are not all due to the fault of Ms. Payet.  Therefore, the impugned decision of the Minister is not unreasonable, unjustified, irrational, arbitrary or illegal nor was the Petitioner denied its right to natural justice or any prejudice caused.  The Respondent also acted within its mandate and committed no procedural impropriety.  </span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">6.         Good Faith and Arguable case (Rule 6)</span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">:  An application for Leave for Judicial Review under Rule 6(1) Supreme Court (Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules must fulfil two steps test, firstly, the Applicant must show that it has sufficient interest in the matter and secondly, that the application is made in “good faith” by satisfying the Court that the issues raised in the application are arguable.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">The impugned Decision of the Minister upholding the Decision of the Competent Officer was not challenged by the petitioner at the first instance but participated in the Proceeding in MED/W/D/2020/166 before the Competent Officer. The mediation to bring about a settlement failed and the Competent Officer issued certificate in accordance with Section 61 (1D) of the Employment Act, 2008 as evidence that both parties have undergone the mediation process.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">That upon issuance of such certificate by the Competent Officer an aggrieved party in accordance with Section 61(1E) of the Employment Act, to a grievance shall bring the matter before the Tribunal within 30 days if no agreement has been reached at mediation.  However, the petitioner chose not to abide by the provision under Section 61(1E) of the Employment Act and instead of bringing the matter before the Tribunal in accordance with Section 61(1E) of the Employment Act, 2008, filed this instant Judicial Review against the Decision of the Minister at the belated stage.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">7.         Consideration for Grant for Leave:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">In terms of <b>Rule 6(1) </b>Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, leave shall be granted only if the applicant satisfies the Court that it has not only sufficient interest in the subject matter but also that the application is filed in “Good Faith”.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">In term of <b>Rule 15</b> of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, the Hon’ble Court may on the application of any parties dismiss the application where the party fails to comply with the requirements set out in the proceeding Rules.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpLast" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Learned counsel for both parties made lengthy submissions in support of their respective case.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Article 125 of the constitution of the Republic of Seychelles provides:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">125.     (1) There shall be a Supreme Court which shall, in addition to the jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Constitution, have -</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(a) original jurisdiction in matters relating to the application, contravention, enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution;</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(b) original jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters;</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(c) <u>supervisory jurisdiction over</u> subordinate courts, tribunals and <u>adjudicating authority</u> and, in this connection, <u>shall have power to issue</u> injunctions, directions, orders or <u>writs including writs</u> or orders <u>in the nature of</u> habeas corpus, <u>certiorari</u>, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto <u>as may be appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory jurisdiction</u>; and</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(d) such other original, appellate and other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by or under an Act.</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="8"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Rule 2 (2)<i> </i>of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules states that:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:95px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="background:white" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">“(2) The petitioner shall annex to the petition a certified copy of the order or decision sought to be canvassed and originals of documents material to the petition or certified copies thereof in the form of exhibits.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="background:white" xml:lang="EN-GB">At this stage the Court is concerned with whether the Petition discloses an arguable case, has sufficient interest in the matter to be determined, the Petition is made in good faith and generally in accordance to the rules of the Supreme Court.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I shall start with the breach of rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules and non-joinder of the complainant as a party. This Court considered both these same issues in the case of <i><u>GCC Exchange (Sey) Ltd v Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority </u></i><u>(MC 35/2020)</u> judgment delivered on 15<sup>th</sup> October 2021 in which the Court also made reference to the case of <i><u>Tornado Trading v PUC &amp; Anor (Civil Appeal SCA 35/2018) [2018] SCCA 45.</u></i> The Court accepted the argument of the Petitioner which submitted in <i><u>GCC Exchange that</u></i>;</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i>“While Rule 2 (2) of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules does provide for certified copies of the decision and other material documents to be annexed to the Petition, … the breach of the rule is not fatal and that, in this case, it is excusable insofar as there is no dispute between the parties as to the nature and content of the decision sought to be reviewed.”</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As there is no contention as to what decision is being contested and why, the production of a certified copy of it would only be for formality’s sake. It would be a sad day when an unnecessary formality becomes an obstruction and leads to the denial of justice. </span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="10"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Secondly, the complainant in the employment case has in fact applied to intervene and is now a party to the proceedings as intervener. A decision therefore on whether the non-joinder of the complainant is now academic. As per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Bridge" title="Lord Bridge"><span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none">Lord Bridge</span></span></a>’s dictum in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyd_v_McMahon&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" title="Lloyd v McMahon (page does not exist)"><i>Lloyd v McMahon</i></a><u> [1987] AC 625</u>, </span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:48px; text-indent:36.0pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i>"the rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone"</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having rejected these 2 objections as not fatal to this Petition, the argument that these 2 infringements are evidence of bad faith on the part of the Petitioner is substantially weakened. Since these were the grounds upon which the averments of bad faith emanated from it would be simply fair for this Court be appraised of the merits of the Petition for a considered decision on bad faith to be given. Hence the Respondent is not precluded from raising this issue again should the case go to hearing on the merit and substance of the Petition. The same applies to ground 5 of the objection, namely the consideration of the reasonableness in the decision making and whether there was procedural impropriety proved by the Petitioner. These are not matters to be determined at leave stage.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="11"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The final issue left to be determined in this case is whether the Petitioner has an arguable case. This relates to whether the Petitioner has sufficient interest in the matter at hand and whether the Petitioner has come for judicial review in good faith. Good faith has already been addressed above. The Petitioner is the Respondent in the Employment case filed by the intervener. A decision on the matter would certainly affect the Petitioner, whether positively or negatively as the complainant, employer. . It cannot be said therefore that the Petitioner has insufficient interest in the matter. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Consequently, I find that there is sufficient grounds for leave to be granted for judicial review. The objections are dismissed with the stipulation that the Respondent shall not be precluded from revisiting matters pertinent to the merits and substance of the Petition.  </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:107%"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 10<sup>th</sup> November 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:107%"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">____________            </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="tab-stops:108.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Dodin J                       </span></span></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> </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-c5d6dbc9193d6497d2b1aade2066a6d5f22d50c5468b4220ddc3a7ba92b666a9"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>DODIN J</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">This is a Petition for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction pursuant to rule 2 of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The brief facts giving leading to the filing of this Petition are that one Brigitte Payet filed an application out of time claiming unfair dismissal, ill-treatment and unpaid salary by the Petitioner before the Ministry of Employment, Immigration and Civil Status. The said Miss Payet gave the reason for filing her grievance outside the prescribed 14 days period as having been in poor health. The Competent Officer accepted her reasons and allowed the grievance to be filed out of time. The Petitioner objected to the decision of the Competent Officer and appealed the same raising several issues which tend to show that the reasons given by Miss Payet were false since during the period she is alleged to have been of ill-health she was seen at a party, she appeared before Court and the Registration Division in other matters. On appeal, the decision to allow the grievance to proceed out of time was maintained. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Petitioner then filed for judicial review of that decision raising the following grounds:    </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">1.         The Decision was procedurally improper in that:</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">a.  It did not state the reasons why the failure to register the grievance out of time was not the fault of the Complainant;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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.  It did not disclose the evidence used by the Complainant to justify her application to register the grievance out of time thus denying the Petitioner an opportunity to have all the facts and evidence for the Appeal.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">2.         The Decision was unreasonable in that it failed to give comprehensive and clear reasoning for the outcome reached, simply stating arbitrarily that the ‘circumstances surrounding the delay are not all due to the fault of [the Complainant]’ without delving into what those circumstances are.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">3.         The Decision was irrational in that the Petitioner attached clear evidence to the Appeal of the Complainant’s disingenuity about her personal circumstances and health which affected her ability to file the grievance within time, but this was not considered or addressed whatsoever by the Respondent in the Decision or at all.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpLast" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <ol start="4"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Petitioner moves the Court for the following remedies: </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">a.        to grant the Petitioner leave to proceed with this Petition;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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.        to direct the Respondent to disclose to the Petitioner all records and documents related and incidental to the Decision;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">c.        to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Decision;</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">d.        to make any order it deems fit and appropriate in all the circumstances of this case; and </span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt 72.0pt 129.0pt"><i><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;">e.        costs.          </span></span></span></i></span></span></p> <p class="CxSpLast" style="margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-31.5pt"> </p> <ol start="5"><li class="JudgmentTextCxSpFirst"><span style="tab-stops:55.5pt">The Respondent objected to the petition for judicial review raising the following grounds of objection:</span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentTextCxSpLast"><span style="tab-stops:55.5pt">       </span></p> <p class="CxSpFirst" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">1.         Non-joinder of party:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">That the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and directly affected party.  Ms. Brigitte Payet (the Complainant), General Manager of La Digue Island Lodge and an Executive Director of Gregoire’s Company (Pty) Ltd. who has lodged a grievance against the Company/Petitioner herein of unfair dismissal, ill treatment and unpaid salary at the Employment Department, Ministry of Employment, Immigration and Civil Status on the 8<sup>th</sup> September 2020 is not arrayed as a party to this petition.  Secondly, the directly affected party is the Complainant Ms. Payet who will be directed affected or have a bearing by the outcome of this proceeding. The instant petition therefore must be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary and directly affected parties at the very outset.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">2.         Bad faith:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">The non-joinder of the Complainant by the Petitioner in a Judicial Review Petition that will have a direct effect on her and her grievance against the Company is Bad faith warranting rejection of leave to proceed with the Judicial Review.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">3.         Breach of Rule 6(1):  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">By this deliberate action of not joining the Complainant as party to this petition, the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court that there is no bad faith in instituting the instant petition or in other words that the petition was made in good faith as per <b>Rule 6(1) </b>of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">4.         Breach of Rule 2(2):  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">That Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules mandates a certified copy of the decision/order that is sought to be canvassed, be annexed to the Petition.  There is no certified copy of the impugned decision being canvassed annexed to this instant petition.  On this breach of Rule 2(2) itself the petition must be dismissed.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">5.         Reasonableness in decision making and no procedural impropriety:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">Both parties were given equal opportunity to be heard, adduced relevant evidence before the Employment Advisory Board and on being satisfied passed its Ruling/Annexure R/5 and advised the Minster accordingly.  Thereafter, the Minister on careful consideration of the appeal, relevant evidence adduced and on the advice of the Employment Advisory Board upheld the Decision of the Competent Authority to condone delay and registered the Grievance.  Reason is given in arriving at the impugned Decision that the circumstances surrounding the delay are not all due to the fault of Ms. Payet.  Therefore, the impugned decision of the Minister is not unreasonable, unjustified, irrational, arbitrary or illegal nor was the Petitioner denied its right to natural justice or any prejudice caused.  The Respondent also acted within its mandate and committed no procedural impropriety.  </span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">6.         Good Faith and Arguable case (Rule 6)</span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">:  An application for Leave for Judicial Review under Rule 6(1) Supreme Court (Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules must fulfil two steps test, firstly, the Applicant must show that it has sufficient interest in the matter and secondly, that the application is made in “good faith” by satisfying the Court that the issues raised in the application are arguable.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">The impugned Decision of the Minister upholding the Decision of the Competent Officer was not challenged by the petitioner at the first instance but participated in the Proceeding in MED/W/D/2020/166 before the Competent Officer. The mediation to bring about a settlement failed and the Competent Officer issued certificate in accordance with Section 61 (1D) of the Employment Act, 2008 as evidence that both parties have undergone the mediation process.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">That upon issuance of such certificate by the Competent Officer an aggrieved party in accordance with Section 61(1E) of the Employment Act, to a grievance shall bring the matter before the Tribunal within 30 days if no agreement has been reached at mediation.  However, the petitioner chose not to abide by the provision under Section 61(1E) of the Employment Act and instead of bringing the matter before the Tribunal in accordance with Section 61(1E) of the Employment Act, 2008, filed this instant Judicial Review against the Decision of the Minister at the belated stage.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><b><i><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;">7.         Consideration for Grant for Leave:  </span></span></span></i></b><i><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;">In terms of <b>Rule 6(1) </b>Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, leave shall be granted only if the applicant satisfies the Court that it has not only sufficient interest in the subject matter but also that the application is filed in “Good Faith”.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:-36.0pt"> </p> <p class="CxSpMiddle" style="margin-right:48px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify"><span style="line-height:150%"><i><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;">In term of <b>Rule 15</b> of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, the Hon’ble Court may on the application of any parties dismiss the application where the party fails to comply with the requirements set out in the proceeding Rules.</span></span></span></i></span></p> <p class="CxSpLast" style="text-align:justify"> </p> <ol start="6"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Learned counsel for both parties made lengthy submissions in support of their respective case.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Article 125 of the constitution of the Republic of Seychelles provides:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">125.     (1) There shall be a Supreme Court which shall, in addition to the jurisdiction and powers conferred by this Constitution, have -</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(a) original jurisdiction in matters relating to the application, contravention, enforcement or interpretation of this Constitution;</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(b) original jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters;</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(c) <u>supervisory jurisdiction over</u> subordinate courts, tribunals and <u>adjudicating authority</u> and, in this connection, <u>shall have power to issue</u> injunctions, directions, orders or <u>writs including writs</u> or orders <u>in the nature of</u> habeas corpus, <u>certiorari</u>, mandamus, prohibition and quo warranto <u>as may be appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory jurisdiction</u>; and</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:132px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:11.0pt" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="color:black">(d) such other original, appellate and other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by or under an Act.</span></span></span></i></span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="8"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Rule 2 (2)<i> </i>of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules states that:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:95px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="background:white" xml:lang="EN-GB"><span style="color:black">“(2) The petitioner shall annex to the petition a certified copy of the order or decision sought to be canvassed and originals of documents material to the petition or certified copies thereof in the form of exhibits.”</span></span></i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="background:white" xml:lang="EN-GB">At this stage the Court is concerned with whether the Petition discloses an arguable case, has sufficient interest in the matter to be determined, the Petition is made in good faith and generally in accordance to the rules of the Supreme Court.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="9"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I shall start with the breach of rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules and non-joinder of the complainant as a party. This Court considered both these same issues in the case of <i><u>GCC Exchange (Sey) Ltd v Seychelles Civil Aviation Authority </u></i><u>(MC 35/2020)</u> judgment delivered on 15<sup>th</sup> October 2021 in which the Court also made reference to the case of <i><u>Tornado Trading v PUC &amp; Anor (Civil Appeal SCA 35/2018) [2018] SCCA 45.</u></i> The Court accepted the argument of the Petitioner which submitted in <i><u>GCC Exchange that</u></i>;</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-right:48px; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:96px; text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i>“While Rule 2 (2) of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules does provide for certified copies of the decision and other material documents to be annexed to the Petition, … the breach of the rule is not fatal and that, in this case, it is excusable insofar as there is no dispute between the parties as to the nature and content of the decision sought to be reviewed.”</i></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">As there is no contention as to what decision is being contested and why, the production of a certified copy of it would only be for formality’s sake. It would be a sad day when an unnecessary formality becomes an obstruction and leads to the denial of justice. </span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="10"><li class="JudgmentText" style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:8px; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Secondly, the complainant in the employment case has in fact applied to intervene and is now a party to the proceedings as intervener. A decision therefore on whether the non-joinder of the complainant is now academic. As per <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Bridge" title="Lord Bridge"><span style="text-decoration:none"><span style="text-underline:none">Lord Bridge</span></span></a>’s dictum in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lloyd_v_McMahon&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" title="Lloyd v McMahon (page does not exist)"><i>Lloyd v McMahon</i></a><u> [1987] AC 625</u>, </span></span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-top:8px; margin-bottom:8px; margin-left:48px; text-indent:36.0pt; text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="background:white"><span style="line-height:115%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><i>"the rules of natural justice are not engraved on tablets of stone"</i>.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having rejected these 2 objections as not fatal to this Petition, the argument that these 2 infringements are evidence of bad faith on the part of the Petitioner is substantially weakened. Since these were the grounds upon which the averments of bad faith emanated from it would be simply fair for this Court be appraised of the merits of the Petition for a considered decision on bad faith to be given. Hence the Respondent is not precluded from raising this issue again should the case go to hearing on the merit and substance of the Petition. The same applies to ground 5 of the objection, namely the consideration of the reasonableness in the decision making and whether there was procedural impropriety proved by the Petitioner. These are not matters to be determined at leave stage.</span></span></span></span></p> <ol start="11"><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The final issue left to be determined in this case is whether the Petitioner has an arguable case. This relates to whether the Petitioner has sufficient interest in the matter at hand and whether the Petitioner has come for judicial review in good faith. Good faith has already been addressed above. The Petitioner is the Respondent in the Employment case filed by the intervener. A decision on the matter would certainly affect the Petitioner, whether positively or negatively as the complainant, employer. . It cannot be said therefore that the Petitioner has insufficient interest in the matter. </span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Consequently, I find that there is sufficient grounds for leave to be granted for judicial review. The objections are dismissed with the stipulation that the Respondent shall not be precluded from revisiting matters pertinent to the merits and substance of the Petition.  </span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:107%"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 10<sup>th</sup> November 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="line-height:107%"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">____________            </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><span style="tab-stops:108.0pt"><span style="line-height:107%"><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:107%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Dodin J                       </span></span></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></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:13:20 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5800 at http://seylii.org Ex Parte: Youtlie Quatre & Anor (XP 62 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 978 (26 September 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/978 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Ex Parte: Youtlie Quatre &amp; Anor (XP 62 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 978 (26 September 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 10:09</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-msword file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/978/2022-scsc-978.doc" type="application/msword; length=33792">2022-scsc-978.doc</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/2022/978/2022-scsc-978.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=573582">2022-scsc-978.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:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>DODIN J</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Applicants Youtlie Michel Quatre and Joubert Jules Quatre have sworn affidavits that they are the children of the late Therese Esilda Quatre and Philip Rameau Justin Marie both now deceased on the 15<sup>th</sup> February 2019 and 23<sup>rd</sup> May 2009 respectively.  They both swear that Philip Rameau Justin Marie and Therese Esilda Quatre lived together in concubinage for over 51 years out of which relationship Youtlie Michel Quatre was born on the 22<sup>nd</sup> day of June 1972 and Joubert Jules Quatre was born on 22<sup>nd</sup> September 1970.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Evana Quatre, the sister of Therese Esilda Quatre, Jocelyn Quatre and Daphne Isaac the cousins of Therese Esilda Quatre, also swore affidavits attesting to the birth of the Applicants and that they were brought up by Philip Rameau Justin Marie as their father.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">They further swore that the community of Anse Gaulette, Baie Lazare have always treated Philip Justin Marie as the father of the Applicants and the Applicants have always been treated as the children of the late Philip Rameau Justin Marie and Therese Esilda Quatre.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having carefully studied the documents submitted in support of the application, I note that the certificate (Act) of birth did not record any person as the father of the Applicants.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I note also that Article 340 (3) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act which provided for a prescription period of 5 years of coming of age of the child or 1 year from the date of death of the putative father have now been repealed by the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Further Article 380 (1) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020 provides that there is no prescription of the right of a child to establish his or her parenthood.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having considered all the above, I hereby declare that:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">1.         Youtlie Michel Quatre born on the 22<sup>nd</sup> day of June 1972; and Joubert Jules Quatre born on the 22<sup>nd</sup> September 1970 are the children of the late Philip Rameau Justin Marie.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">2.         I order that the Acts of birth of the Applicants are amended by inserting the name Philip Rameau Justin Marie as father’s name of the Applicants.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">3.         The Applicants may subsequently take the surname Marie should they so wish.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">4.         The Chief Executive Officer of Civil Status is hereby directed to make effective the above orders accordingly.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><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;">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 26<sup>th</sup> September 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><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></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><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;">G. Dodin J</span></span></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-40035b8421d258dda3b11473406019e838a1c9f7555c16a9b4c166ec0c75d57d"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"><p class="JudgmentText" style="text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="line-height:200%"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;"><b>DODIN J</b></span></span></span></span></p> <ol><li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">The Applicants Youtlie Michel Quatre and Joubert Jules Quatre have sworn affidavits that they are the children of the late Therese Esilda Quatre and Philip Rameau Justin Marie both now deceased on the 15<sup>th</sup> February 2019 and 23<sup>rd</sup> May 2009 respectively.  They both swear that Philip Rameau Justin Marie and Therese Esilda Quatre lived together in concubinage for over 51 years out of which relationship Youtlie Michel Quatre was born on the 22<sup>nd</sup> day of June 1972 and Joubert Jules Quatre was born on 22<sup>nd</sup> September 1970.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Evana Quatre, the sister of Therese Esilda Quatre, Jocelyn Quatre and Daphne Isaac the cousins of Therese Esilda Quatre, also swore affidavits attesting to the birth of the Applicants and that they were brought up by Philip Rameau Justin Marie as their father.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">They further swore that the community of Anse Gaulette, Baie Lazare have always treated Philip Justin Marie as the father of the Applicants and the Applicants have always been treated as the children of the late Philip Rameau Justin Marie and Therese Esilda Quatre.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having carefully studied the documents submitted in support of the application, I note that the certificate (Act) of birth did not record any person as the father of the Applicants.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">I note also that Article 340 (3) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act which provided for a prescription period of 5 years of coming of age of the child or 1 year from the date of death of the putative father have now been repealed by the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Further Article 380 (1) of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act 2020 provides that there is no prescription of the right of a child to establish his or her parenthood.</span></span></span></span></li> <li class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:8px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">Having considered all the above, I hereby declare that:</span></span></span></span></li> </ol><p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">1.         Youtlie Michel Quatre born on the 22<sup>nd</sup> day of June 1972; and Joubert Jules Quatre born on the 22<sup>nd</sup> September 1970 are the children of the late Philip Rameau Justin Marie.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">2.         I order that the Acts of birth of the Applicants are amended by inserting the name Philip Rameau Justin Marie as father’s name of the Applicants.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="text-align:justify; text-indent:0cm; margin-bottom:16px; margin-left:48px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">3.         The Applicants may subsequently take the surname Marie should they so wish.</span></span></span></span></p> <p class="JudgmentText" style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-36.0pt; text-align:justify; margin-bottom:16px"><span style="font-size:12pt"><span style="tab-stops:36.0pt"><span style="line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:&quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;">4.         The Chief Executive Officer of Civil Status is hereby directed to make effective the above orders accordingly.</span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><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;">Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 26<sup>th</sup> September 2022</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"> </p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><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></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p style="margin-bottom:11px"><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="page-break-after:avoid"><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;">G. Dodin J</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 10:09:58 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5799 at http://seylii.org R v Balochi & Anor (CO 115 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 975 (09 November 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/975 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">R v Balochi &amp; Anor (CO 115 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 975 (09 November 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 09:54</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/2022/975/2022-scsc-975.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=688480">2022-scsc-975.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-91cdc99dd2b870e69220727bff56ea2e263ff966f76b49587f09cd25cbb54dd3"> <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%2F2022%2F975%2F2022-scsc-975.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/975/2022-scsc-975.pdf" title="2022-scsc-975.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:54:29 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5798 at http://seylii.org Housing Finance Company Ltd v Boniface & Anor (CM 22 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 972 (26 May 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/972 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Housing Finance Company Ltd v Boniface &amp; Anor (CM 22 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 972 (26 May 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 09:39</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/2022/972/2022-scsc-972.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=1903460">2022-scsc-972.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-f5c9c31e6ff8b15c05e9628abce7c1fc857923ebadd30fff898b4918a4db8ad1"> <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%2F2022%2F972%2F2022-scsc-972.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/972/2022-scsc-972.pdf" title="2022-scsc-972.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:39:06 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5797 at http://seylii.org Cloud Innovation Ltd v African Network Info. Ltd (CS 130 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 971 (28 October 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/971 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Cloud Innovation Ltd v African Network Info. Ltd (CS 130 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 971 (28 October 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 09:32</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/2022/971/2022-scsc-971.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=4008295">2022-scsc-971.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-3007684b0c0b3a9157f223499cdc8e82e1008626de8b04b39f508a97d25cbedf"> <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%2F2022%2F971%2F2022-scsc-971.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/971/2022-scsc-971.pdf" title="2022-scsc-971.pdf"></iframe></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:32:22 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5796 at http://seylii.org Faiz Ali Mubarak v R (CO 60 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 970 (08 November 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/970 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">Faiz Ali Mubarak v R (CO 60 of 2021) [2022] SCSC 970 (08 November 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 09:25</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/2022/970/2022-scsc-970.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=814399">2022-scsc-970.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/2022/970/2022-scsc-970.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=21831">2022-scsc-970.docx</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-b5399f87982aefee3817994e3e628d909f059544781b51567677438ebc95dddc"> <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%2F2022%2F970%2F2022-scsc-970.pdf" data-src="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/970/2022-scsc-970.pdf" title="2022-scsc-970.pdf"></iframe> , <span class="file file--mime-application-vnd-openxmlformats-officedocument-wordprocessingml-document file--x-office-document"> <a href="https://media.seylii.org/files/judgments/scsc/2022/970/2022-scsc-970.docx" type="application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; length=21831">2022-scsc-970.docx</a></span></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:25:28 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5795 at http://seylii.org In the matter of Companies Act 1972 v Air Seychelles & Ors (MA 250 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 969 (07 November 2022); http://seylii.org/sc/judgment/supreme-court/2022/969 <span class="field field--name-title field--type-string field--label-hidden">In the matter of Companies Act 1972 v Air Seychelles &amp; Ors (MA 250 of 2022) [2022] SCSC 969 (07 November 2022);</span> <span class="field field--name-uid field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden"><span>Nyasha Katsenga</span></span> <span class="field field--name-created field--type-created field--label-hidden">Fri, 02/03/2023 - 09:19</span> <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-c7e0ad2231a07977697dee1cdbcb634e71c85050b363775c0f53004483728ebc"> <div><div class="views-field views-field-views-conditional-field"><span class="field-content"></span></div></div> </div> </div> Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:19:17 +0000 Nyasha Katsenga 5794 at http://seylii.org