TL v R (SCA CR 12/2025 (Arising in [2022] SCSC CR 21/2022) [2025] SCCA 29 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
SCA CR 12/2025 (Arising in [2022] SCSC CR 21/2022
The Court of Appeal of Seychelles allowed a criminal appeal, quashing a 28-year sexual assault conviction and sentence because the charge was incurably vague and the trial was unfair.
Bar Association of Seychelles v The Honourable Chief Justice Supreme Court and Others ([2025] (15 December 2025) SCA 20/2025 (Arising in MA 09/2025)) [2025] SCCA 25 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
[2025] (15 December 2025) SCA 20/2025 (Arising in MA 09/2025)
The Supreme Court's power to admit attorneys-at-law is a judicial function, not an administrative one. The Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 125(1)(c) of the Constitution does not extend to reviewing its own judicial decisions, including those of the Chief Justice admitting attorneys. The absence of an appeal right under the Legal Practitioners Act does not create jurisdiction for judicial review. The Bar Association lacks standing to challenge individual admissions by judicial review. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The Attorney General v Krishnamart &Company Proprietary Limited (SCA 15/2025 (Arising in MA 288/2024 out of CS 88 of 2024)) [2025] SCCA 30 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
SCA 15/2025 (Arising in MA 288/2024 out of CS 88 of 2024)
Compliance with the formal requirements of section 42 SCCP constitutes sufficient service; the statute does not require proof of likelihood of actual notice or ownership of the premises. The Supreme Court erred by imposing additional requirements not found in the statute.
Ahmed v R ((SCA CR 05/2025) And (SCA CR 06/2025) [2025] (Arising in CR 53/2018) (15 December 2025)) [2025] SCCA 33 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
(SCA CR 05/2025) And (SCA CR 06/2025) [2025] (Arising in CR 53/2018) (15 December 2025)
The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against trafficking convictions, finding the prosecution had not proved the statutory act, means and purpose elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Gregoire’s Company Limited v Payet ((SCA 19/2025) [2025] (Arising in CS 112/2022) (15 December 2025)) [2025] SCCA 36 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
(SCA 19/2025) [2025] (Arising in CS 112/2022) (15 December 2025)
The appellant failed to prove ownership of the Manager's House and the relevant land parcel, and the respondent had a valid licence to occupy the Manager's House with her father's consent. The acts complained of, except for the August 2022 incident and changing the office lock, did not amount to trespass. Even where trespass was established, the appellant failed to prove actionable damage as required by Article 1382. The trial court's findings on credibility and lack of damage were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.
The Estate of the Late Andre Delhomme v The Attorney General (SCA11/2025) and The Attorney General v The Estate of the Late Andre Delhomme And (SCA 12/2025) [2025] (Arising in CS 79/2020) (15 December 2025) (2025) [2025] SCCA 34 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
2025
The Court of Appeal held the Estate had not proved non-payment of SCR 1.5 million and allowed the Attorney General’s appeal, dismissing the Estate’s claim.
Estate of the Late Dr. Hilda Stevenson Delhomme v The Government of Seychelles and Another ((SCA CL 02/2025) [2025] (Arising in CP 03/2024)) [2025] SCCA 35 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
(SCA CL 02/2025) [2025] (Arising in CP 03/2024)
The Court of Appeal dismissed an estate’s appeal over compulsory acquisition claims, holding the petition time-barred and barred by prolonged unexplained delay.
Gamatis & Another v Bank of Baroda ((SCA MA 05/2025) - (Arising in SCA 16/2025) And (SCA 16/2025) - (Arising in CM 41/2024) [2025]15 December 2025)) [2025] SCCA 32 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
(SCA MA 05/2025) - (Arising in SCA 16/2025) And (SCA 16/2025) - (Arising in CM 41/2024) [2025]15 December 2025)
The appeal is barred by section 212 of the Immovable Property (Judicial Sales) Act because the appellants did not raise any objection at the time of adjudication. The statutory bar is absolute and precludes appellate review, regardless of subsequent claims of unfairness or new evidence. The documents relied on by the appellants did not constitute a valid objection under the Act, and the application to adduce new evidence fails to meet the legal threshold.