Generation Transportation & Logistics (Proprietary) Limited v Minister for Finance, Economic Planning and Trade (MA 09/2021) [2021] SCSC 874 (12 April 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COFRT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable [2021] SCSC /36 MC09/2021 GENERATION TRANSPORTATION & LOGISTICS Petitioner (PROPRIET ARY) LIMITED (rep. by Pesi Pardiwalla) and MINISTER OF FINANCE, ECONOMIC PLANNING Respondent AND TRADE Neutral Citation: Generation Transportation & Logistics (Proprietary) Limited v Minister for Finance, Economic Planning and Trade (MA 09/2020) [2021] SCSC 13 ~ .......... Vidot J Judicial Review; Application for Leave (15th April 2021). Before: Summary: Heard: Delivered: Application granted VIDOTJ 12thApril 2021 ORDER RULING [1] The Petitioner has filed an application in terms with Article 125(c) of the Constitution asking the Court to judicially review a decision made by the Respondent. The application for judicial review is in regards to eighteen (18) Toyota Glanza motor vehicles imported into the country by the Petitioner, seven (7) of which were not released by the Respondent on grounds on insufficient satisfactory evidence to confirm that some payment for the vehicles had been made prior to a moratorium announced by the Respondent on the 07th April 2020. The Petitioner alleges that payment for the vehicles were made by bank transfers on the 19th March 2020, 3JSI March 2020 and 06th April 2020. The moratorium which was announced by the Respondent on 07th April 2020, purported to impose a ban on importation of vehicles including certain exceptions, such as where the importer has made a payment to its supplier before the 07th April 2021. [2] The Petitioner challenges the making (.f that moratorium as no law, order or notice was brought into force to give effect to tha; moratorium. The Petitioner therefore avers that the Respondent had no legal authority to impose the moratorium and in any case it could not ffect the determination of the Petitioner's application for permit to import the vehicles, which is alleged had been ordered prior to the moratorium. [3] The application for leave is made pursuant to Rules 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunal and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules ("the Rules"). Rule 6( I) provides that "The Supreme Court shall not grant the petitioner leave to proceed unless the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the petition is made in good faith. " [4] Therefore, an application for judicial review undergoes a process comprising 2 stages; the leave stage and the merits stage. These are governed by the Rules. The rules applicable to the leave stage are couched in Rules 2 to 6. An application for leave is made ex-parte to a Judge who may determine whether or not to grant leave. At the stage the primary consideration of the Court is to satisfy itself that prima facie reasons exist in order to grant leave. Normally the Judge should grant it forthwith ifit is arguable. Ifnot, it is rejected and if it falls in between, an inter partes hearing is held. In fact the leave stage is the stage whereby the court weeds out any unarguable case. It makes no allowance for applications from busy bodies. It assesses whether the Applicant is in good faith and has locus standi, i.e sufficient interest in the matter. The concept of arguability also serves as a filter against useless and frivolous application. Leave is not granted unless the Applicant demonstrates an arguable point. In R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex-parte Cbeblak (1991] 1 WLR 980 Lord Donaldson stated as follows; "the requirement that leave is obtained before substantive application can be made for relief by way of judicial review is designed to operate as a filter to exclude cases that are unarguable. Accordingly an application for leave is normally dealt with on the basis of summary submissions. If an arguable point emerges, leave is granted and extended argument ensues upon the hearing oj."ubstantive application [51 I find that in this case the Petitioner has satisfied the Court that it has locus standi and the case is being prosecuted in good faith. The Petitioner has an arguable case. The Petitioner is directly affected by the non-release of the seven vehicles which the Respondent submits were imported in contravention of the moratorium. The Petitioner on its part counters that the decision he did. This indeed is an arguable point. Ido not find that this application is brought in bad faith. (6) Therefore, Ihereby accede the application. Leave to proceed is granted. (7) 1order that a copy of this Ruling and the Application are served on the Respondent. Signed, dated and delivered at lie du Port on 13th April 2021 3