Amusement Centre (Pty) Ltd v Doris Victor & Ors (MA 69/2015) [2015] SCSC 193 (24 June 2015)

Amusement Centre (Pty) Ltd v Doris Victor & Ors (MA 69/2015) [2015] SCSC 193 (24 June 2015)

The applicant failed to demonstrate valid or substantial grounds of appeal, and the balance of convenience, hardship, and loss favors the respondents. Granting a stay would unjustly delay the respondents’ entitlement to the Tribunal’s award. A stay is not necessary for the ends of justice in this case.

Citation
[2015] SCSC 193
Parties
Applicant: Amusement Centre (Pty) Ltd (Rep. by Dr. Ramadoss); Respondent: Doris Victor & Ors
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Case Number
MA 69/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Motion (stay of Execution) / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Appeal Procedure, Equitable Remedies, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
English
Employment Law Civil Procedure Equity Stay of Execution Appeal Procedure Equitable Remedies Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amusement Centre (Pty) Ltd (Rep. by Dr. Ramadoss)

Applicant

Doris Victor & Ors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Motion (stay of Execution) / Ruling on Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant a stay of execution of the Employment Tribunal’s decision pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown valid or substantial grounds of appeal
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors granting the stay

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate valid or substantial grounds of appeal, and the balance of convenience, hardship, and loss favors the respondents. Granting a stay would unjustly delay the respondents’ entitlement to the Tribunal’s award. A stay is not necessary for the ends of justice in this case.

Court Disposition

Application for stay of execution dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application for stay of execution is declined.
  • Applicant to pay costs.