Malvina & Ors v Esapron & Ors (CS 04/2017) [2018] SCSC 8040 (18 January 2018)

Malvina & Ors v Esapron & Ors (CS 04/2017) [2018] SCSC 8040 (18 January 2018)

The Plaintiffs failed to initiate their action against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants within the statutory limitation period of six months as prescribed under Section 3 of the POPA as at the date of the cause of action (30th October 2014). The amendment to POPA extending the limitation period to five years does not apply retrospectively. The cause of action accrued on the date of death, not on the date of the 1st Defendant's guilty plea. The plea in limine litis on prescription is upheld and the Plaint is dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

Citation
[2018] SCSC 8040
Parties
Plaintiff: Juliette Ruby Rita Malvina; Plaintiff: Pascal Robin Malvina; Plaintiff: Tracy Letisha Malvina; First Defendant: Marcel Esapron; Second Defendant: Mr. Reginald Elizabeth, Commissioner of Police; Third Defendant: The Attorney General representing the Government of Seychelles
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
18 January 2018
Case Number
CS 04/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine Litis
Outcome
Plaint dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants; matter to proceed against the 1st Defendant.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Vicarious Liability, Prescription, Non Joinder of Parties
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Tort Law Public Law Limitation Periods Vicarious Liability Prescription Non Joinder of Parties

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

Parties

Juliette Ruby Rita Malvina

Plaintiff

Pascal Robin Malvina

Plaintiff

Tracy Letisha Malvina

Plaintiff

Marcel Esapron

First Defendant

Mr. Reginald Elizabeth, Commissioner of Police

Second Defendant

The Attorney General representing the Government of Seychelles

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Plea in Limine Litis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaint is prescribed under section 3 of the Public Officers Protection Act (POPA)
  2. 2 Whether there is vicarious liability of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants for acts of the 1st Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the Plaint is bad in law for non-joinder of SACOS Insurance Company

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiffs failed to initiate their action against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants within the statutory limitation period of six months as prescribed under Section 3 of the POPA as at the date of the cause of action (30th October 2014). The amendment to POPA extending the limitation period to five years does not apply retrospectively. The cause of action accrued on the date of death, not on the date of the 1st Defendant's guilty plea. The plea in limine litis on prescription is upheld and the Plaint is dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.

Court Disposition

Plaint dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants; matter to proceed against the 1st Defendant.

Orders

  • Plaint dismissed as against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
  • Matter may proceed against the 1st Defendant subject to amendments by Plaintiffs.