Petit v Lefevre & Anor (SCA 28 of 1995) [1996] SCCA 18 (30 October 1996)
The evidence sought to be introduced was available at the Supreme Court and could have been adduced then; the application is an abuse of process, especially as it would contradict the appellant's statement of defence and there is no cross-appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] SCCA 18
- Parties
- Appellant: Cedric Petit; 1st Respondent: Georges Lefevre; 2nd Respondent: Marghita Lefevre
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- SCA 28 of 1995
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Adduce Additional Evidence
- Outcome
- application refused
- Legal Topics
- Adduction of Additional Evidence on Appeal, Abuse of Process
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cedric Petit
Appellant
Georges Lefevre
1st Respondent
Marghita Lefevre
2nd Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application to Adduce Additional Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be allowed to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence sought to be introduced was available at the Supreme Court and could have been adduced then; the application is an abuse of process, especially as it would contradict the appellant's statement of defence and there is no cross-appeal.
Court Disposition
application refused
Orders
- application to adduce additional evidence is refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL CEDRIC PETIT APPELLANT VERSUS 1. 2. GEORGES LEFEVRE MARGHITA LEFEVRE RESPONDENTS Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1995 ~, Mr. P. 80ulle for the Appellant Mr. R. Valabhji for the 1st Respondent Mr. J. Renaud for the 2nd Respondent RULING We have considered this applicatioh. We hold that evidence now sought to be introduced was available and could have been adduced at the Supreme Court. This application amounts to an abuse of process much so since it would contadict the appellant's statement of defence and also there has been no cross-appeal. Application is refused. '-<-- I ..-£-"'- .---- H. Goburdhun President lU~ltV E. O Ayoola Justice of Appeal ~.~.~ M. AAdam Justice of Appeal ~ Dated this 30th day of October, 1996.