Benoiton & Ors v Rene & Ors (CP 12/2020) [2021] SCCC 6 (19 October 2021)

Benoiton & Ors v Rene & Ors (CP 12/2020) [2021] SCCC 6 (19 October 2021)

There was no refusal by the Plaintiffs to undertake DNA testing; rather, there was acquiescence and willingness, with disagreement only as to the facility. Therefore, the constitutional question is fundamentally flawed and there is no breach of Article 32 of the Constitution.

Citation
[2021] SCCC 6
Parties
Plaintiff: Andre Leslie Benoiton; Plaintiff: Jenette Shirley Otar; Plaintiff: Christine Nichole Frichot; Plaintiff: Brigitte Alice Hermitte; Plaintiff: Nathalie Rachel Arissol; Defendant: Sarah Zarquani Rene; Defendant: Louisa Carmelle Rene; Defendant: Ella Setareh Rene; Defendant: Dawn Elsa Rene; Defendant: Pandora Rene; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
19 October 2021
Case Number
CP 12/2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Referral / Referral From Supreme Court to Constitutional Court for Determination of Constitutional Question
Outcome
Referral dismissed; matter referred back to trial court for decision on merits.
Legal Topics
Paternity, DNA Testing, Right to Family, Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Family Law Civil Procedure Paternity DNA Testing Right to Family Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Leslie Benoiton

Plaintiff

Jenette Shirley Otar

Plaintiff

Christine Nichole Frichot

Plaintiff

Brigitte Alice Hermitte

Plaintiff

Nathalie Rachel Arissol

Plaintiff

Sarah Zarquani Rene

Defendant

Louisa Carmelle Rene

Defendant

Ella Setareh Rene

Defendant

Dawn Elsa Rene

Defendant

Pandora Rene

Defendant

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Referral / Referral From Supreme Court to Constitutional Court for Determination of Constitutional Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal to undertake DNA test to prove paternity is an infringement of Article 32 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether disagreement on the facility for DNA testing constitutes refusal
  3. 3 Whether Article 340 and 321 of the Civil Code, as applied, breach constitutional rights

Ratio Decidendi

There was no refusal by the Plaintiffs to undertake DNA testing; rather, there was acquiescence and willingness, with disagreement only as to the facility. Therefore, the constitutional question is fundamentally flawed and there is no breach of Article 32 of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Referral dismissed; matter referred back to trial court for decision on merits.

Orders

  • Referral to Constitutional Court is dismissed.
  • Matter is referred back to the trial court for a decision on the merits.