Bodco Ltd v Herminie & Anor (CS 141/1999) [2001] SCSC 10 (16 May 2001)

Bodco Ltd v Herminie & Anor (CS 141/1999) [2001] SCSC 10 (16 May 2001)

The application was not filed within the mandatory three-month period, and the reasons advanced for the delay did not constitute 'good reason' under Rule 4. The delay was attributable to the applicant and its representatives, not to any statutory duty of the Minister. The court has no discretion to extend time in the absence of good reason, and the petition must be dismissed for non-compliance with the limitation period.

Citation
[2001] SCSC 10
Parties
Petitioner: Bodco Ltd; Respondent: Herminie; Respondent: Or
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
16 May 2001
Case Number
CS 141/1999
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review (writ of Certiorari) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (plea in Limine Litis)
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Certiorari, Limitation Period, Employment Termination, Compensation
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Employment Law Judicial Review Certiorari Limitation Period Employment Termination Compensation

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bodco Ltd

Petitioner

Herminie

Respondent

Or

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review (writ of Certiorari) / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (plea in Limine Litis)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for a writ of certiorari was filed within the mandatory three-month limitation period under Rule 4 of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules, 1995.
  2. 2 Whether there was good reason to extend the limitation period for filing the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was not filed within the mandatory three-month period, and the reasons advanced for the delay did not constitute 'good reason' under Rule 4. The delay was attributable to the applicant and its representatives, not to any statutory duty of the Minister. The court has no discretion to extend time in the absence of good reason, and the petition must be dismissed for non-compliance with the limitation period.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition dismissed for non-compliance with Rule 4 limitation period.
  • First and Second Respondents entitled to costs.