Estico vs Fanchette and others (CS 36.2012) [2014] SCSC 381 (22 October 2014)

Estico vs Fanchette and others (CS 36.2012) [2014] SCSC 381 (22 October 2014)

The search at the plaintiff's residence was not based on reasonable suspicion but was a malicious act carried out in retaliation for the plaintiff's refusal to allow an NDEA officer to board the aircraft with a dog while passengers were disembarking. The defendants misconstrued the plaintiff's actions, and their subsequent search was not justified by any objectively reasonable grounds. The act constituted a fault in law under Article 1382(3) of the Civil Code, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the resulting damages. Statutory immunity does not protect acts done in bad faith.

Citation
[2014] SCSC 381
Parties
Plaintiff: Michel Andre Estico; 1st Defendant: Nichol Fanchette; 2nd Defendant: National Drug Enforcement Agency; 3rd Defendant: The Commissioner of Police; 4th Defendant: The Government of Seychelles
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
22 October 2014
Case Number
CS 36.2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Unlawful Search, Breach of Privacy, Abuse of Power, Damages, Immunity of Public Officers
Source Language
English
Tort Law Constitutional Law Unlawful Search Breach of Privacy Abuse of Power Damages Immunity of Public Officers

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michel Andre Estico

Plaintiff

Nichol Fanchette

1st Defendant

National Drug Enforcement Agency

2nd Defendant

The Commissioner of Police

3rd Defendant

The Government of Seychelles

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the search of the plaintiff's residence was unlawful and malicious
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are liable in delict for damages for unlawful entry, breach of privacy, and moral damage
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are protected by statutory immunity under the NDEA Act

Ratio Decidendi

The search at the plaintiff's residence was not based on reasonable suspicion but was a malicious act carried out in retaliation for the plaintiff's refusal to allow an NDEA officer to board the aircraft with a dog while passengers were disembarking. The defendants misconstrued the plaintiff's actions, and their subsequent search was not justified by any objectively reasonable grounds. The act constituted a fault in law under Article 1382(3) of the Civil Code, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the resulting damages. Statutory immunity does not protect acts done in bad faith.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff SR 325,000 with interest at 4% per annum from the date of the plaint
  • Defendants to pay costs of the action