Payet v Talma & Another (CS 92/2017) [2020] SCSC 580 (5 August 2020)

Payet v Talma & Another (CS 92/2017) [2020] SCSC 580 (5 August 2020)

The court found that the constitutional question of whether Article 834 of the Civil Code contravenes Article 26 of the Constitution is not frivolous or vexatious and has not been previously determined by the Constitutional Court, thus it must be referred for determination under Article 130(6) of the Constitution.

Citation
[2020] SCSC 580
Parties
Plaintiff: Jemma Marie Payet; 1st Defendant: Alwyn Talma; 2nd Defendant: Thony Clement Adeline
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
5 August 2020
Case Number
CS 92/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Referral to Constitutional Court on Constitutional Question After Close of Plaintiff's Case; Preliminary Objections Reserved
Outcome
Referral to Constitutional Court
Legal Topics
Rescission of Sale, Retrocession of Co Owned Land, Right to Property, Referral to Constitutional Court, Preliminary Objections
Source Language
English
Property Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Sale Retrocession of Co Owned Land Right to Property Referral to Constitutional Court Preliminary Objections

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jemma Marie Payet

Plaintiff

Alwyn Talma

1st Defendant

Thony Clement Adeline

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Referral to Constitutional Court on Constitutional Question After Close of Plaintiff's Case; Preliminary Objections Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 834 of the Civil Code (retrocession) contravenes Article 26 of the Constitution (right to property)
  2. 2 Whether the constitutional question is frivolous or vexatious and should be referred to the Constitutional Court

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the constitutional question of whether Article 834 of the Civil Code contravenes Article 26 of the Constitution is not frivolous or vexatious and has not been previously determined by the Constitutional Court, thus it must be referred for determination under Article 130(6) of the Constitution.

Court Disposition

Referral to Constitutional Court

Orders

  • The question of whether Article 834 of the Civil Code contravenes Article 26 or any other provisions of the Constitution is referred to the Constitutional Court.
  • Ruling on preliminary objections, including submission of no case to answer, is reserved pending the Constitutional Court's determination.