Dhanjee v Michel & Ors (CP 15 of 2011) [2012] SCCC 1 (17 January 2012)

Dhanjee v Michel & Ors (CP 15 of 2011) [2012] SCCC 1 (17 January 2012)

The CAA’s recommendation for extension of the fifth respondent’s contract was ultra vires and unconstitutional as it contravened articles 131(3) and 131(4) of the Constitution. The CAA has no constitutional mandate to extend the contract of a non-Seychellois Justice of Appeal beyond the original term; it may only recommend a second appointment after completion of the first term and only in exceptional circumstances. The President’s appointment based on the impugned recommendation was null and void ab initio.

Citation
[2012] SCCC 1
Parties
Petitioner: Viral Dhanjee; First Respondent: President of the Republic of Seychelles; Second Respondent: Chairman, Constitutional Appointments Authority (CAA); Third Respondent: Member, CAA; Fourth Respondent: Member, CAA; Fifth Respondent: Dr Satyabhooshun Gupt Domah; Sixth Respondent: Sixth Respondent; Seventh Respondent: Seventh Respondent
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
17 January 2012
Case Number
CP 15 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed; appointment set aside
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions, Judicial Independence, Appointment and Tenure of Judges, Ultra Vires Acts, Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Judicial Appointments Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions Judicial Independence Appointment and Tenure of Judges Ultra Vires Acts 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Viral Dhanjee

Petitioner

President of the Republic of Seychelles

First Respondent

Chairman, Constitutional Appointments Authority (CAA)

Second Respondent

Member, CAA

Third Respondent

Member, CAA

Fourth Respondent

Dr Satyabhooshun Gupt Domah

Fifth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the recommendation by the CAA for extension of the fifth respondent’s contract and the subsequent appointment by the President were constitutional under articles 131(3) and 131(4) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the CAA had the constitutional mandate to extend the contract of a non-Seychellois Justice of Appeal for a further period beyond the original term
  3. 3 Whether the appointment for a second term could be made before the completion of the first term

Ratio Decidendi

The CAA’s recommendation for extension of the fifth respondent’s contract was ultra vires and unconstitutional as it contravened articles 131(3) and 131(4) of the Constitution. The CAA has no constitutional mandate to extend the contract of a non-Seychellois Justice of Appeal beyond the original term; it may only recommend a second appointment after completion of the first term and only in exceptional circumstances. The President’s appointment based on the impugned recommendation was null and void ab initio.

Court Disposition

Petition allowed; appointment set aside

Orders

  • Declaration that the CAA’s recommendation for extension was ultra vires and unconstitutional
  • Declaration that the President’s appointment based on that recommendation is null and void ab initio