Joubert V Philoe & Ors (CS 75/2014) [2016] SCSC 243 (5 April 2016)

Joubert V Philoe & Ors (CS 75/2014) [2016] SCSC 243 (5 April 2016)

The Plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 3rd and 4th Defendants, so the first plea in limine litis is not entertained at this stage. However, the action against the 4th Defendant is prescribed by Section 3 of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, as the cause of action arose on 14th March 2012 and the suit was filed more than six months later. The 4th Defendant is therefore struck off the Plaint.

Citation
[2016] SCSC 243
Parties
Plaintiff: Gemma Joubert; 1st Defendant: Davidson Philoe; 2nd Defendant: Development Bank of Seychelles; 3rd Defendant: Seychelles Licensing Authority; 4th Defendant: Registrar General
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
5 April 2016
Case Number
CS 75/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine Litis (preliminary Objections)
Outcome
4th Defendant struck off the Plaint; matter to proceed on merits against 2nd and 3rd Defendants; Judgement already entered against 1st Defendant.
Legal Topics
Plea in Limine Litis, Reasonable Cause of Action, Prescription, Public Officers Protection
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Delict/tort Plea in Limine Litis Reasonable Cause of Action Prescription Public Officers Protection

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

Parties

Gemma Joubert

Plaintiff

Davidson Philoe

1st Defendant

Development Bank of Seychelles

2nd Defendant

Seychelles Licensing Authority

3rd Defendant

Registrar General

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine Litis (preliminary Objections)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 3rd and 4th Defendants
  2. 2 Whether the action against the 4th Defendant is prescribed by law under the Public Officers (Protection) Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 3rd and 4th Defendants, so the first plea in limine litis is not entertained at this stage. However, the action against the 4th Defendant is prescribed by Section 3 of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, as the cause of action arose on 14th March 2012 and the suit was filed more than six months later. The 4th Defendant is therefore struck off the Plaint.

Court Disposition

4th Defendant struck off the Plaint; matter to proceed on merits against 2nd and 3rd Defendants; Judgement already entered against 1st Defendant.

Orders

  • 4th Defendant struck off the Plaint
  • Matter to proceed on merits against 2nd and 3rd Defendants