Ex Parte Eastern European Engineering Limited (MA 13/2021 (arising in XP 01/2021)) [2021] SCSC 886 (29 April 2021)

Ex Parte Eastern European Engineering Limited (MA 13/2021 (arising in XP 01/2021)) [2021] SCSC 886 (29 April 2021)

Leave to commence a private prosecution is refused because counts 2 and 3 are based on repealed statutory provisions and thus allege offences unknown to law, while count 1 is defective for duplicity and is also vexatious and premature in light of pending appeals and the doctrine of lis pendens.

Citation
[2021] SCSC 886
Parties
Applicant: Eastern European Engineering Limited; Proposed Accused: Vishram Java Patel; Proposed Accused: Foram Varsani; Proposed Accused: Nilesh Kerai; Proposed Accused: Kaushallkumar Patel; Company of Proposed Accused: Vijay Construction (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
29 April 2021
Case Number
MA 13/2021 (arising in XP 01/2021)
Procedural Posture
Ex Parte Application for Leave to Commence Private Prosecution / Ruling on Application for Leave
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Prosecution, Framing of Charges, Offences Unknown to Law, Duplicity in Charges, Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Source Language
English
Criminal Procedure Company Law Private Prosecution Framing of Charges Offences Unknown to Law Duplicity in Charges Doctrine of Lis Pendens

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eastern European Engineering Limited

Applicant

Vishram Java Patel

Proposed Accused

Foram Varsani

Proposed Accused

Nilesh Kerai

Proposed Accused

Kaushallkumar Patel

Proposed Accused

Vijay Construction (Pty) Limited

Company of Proposed Accused

Procedural Posture

Ex Parte Application for Leave to Commence Private Prosecution / Ruling on Application for Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the offences alleged are known to law and properly framed
  2. 2 Whether the application is vexatious or premature due to pending appeals
  3. 3 Whether duplicity in the charge renders it defective

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to commence a private prosecution is refused because counts 2 and 3 are based on repealed statutory provisions and thus allege offences unknown to law, while count 1 is defective for duplicity and is also vexatious and premature in light of pending appeals and the doctrine of lis pendens.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to conduct a private prosecution is dismissed.