Parcou v Laporte & Anor (CP 07/2020) [2021] SCCC 2 (27 April 2021)

Parcou v Laporte & Anor (CP 07/2020) [2021] SCCC 2 (27 April 2021)

The petition was filed more than three months after the petitioner became aware of the alleged contravention and without seeking leave for late filing. The Constitutional Court has no power to grant leave where none is sought. Furthermore, after a referral under Article 46(7) is refused by the Supreme Court, the petitioner must either appeal or make a fresh referral, not seek direct access under Article 46(1). The issues raised are appellate in nature and can be addressed by the Court of Appeal, where an appeal is already pending. The petition is therefore dismissed as time barred and procedurally improper.

Citation
[2021] SCCC 2
Parties
Petitioner: Rosita Parcou; 1st Respondent: Jill Laporte; 2nd Respondent: Attorney General
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
27 April 2021
Case Number
CP 07/2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Final Disposition
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Time Bar in Constitutional Petitions, Referral Procedure Under Article 46(7), Direct Access to Constitutional Court, Right to Equality, Right to Fair Hearing, Right to Protection of Family, DNA Evidence in Paternity Cases
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Time Bar in Constitutional Petitions Referral Procedure Under Article 46(7) Direct Access to Constitutional Court Right to Equality Right to Fair Hearing Right to Protection of Family +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosita Parcou

Petitioner

Jill Laporte

1st Respondent

Attorney General

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objections and Final Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petition was filed within the prescribed time under Rule 4 of the Constitutional Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner could directly access the Constitutional Court under Article 46(1) after a referral was refused by the Supreme Court
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised were constitutional or appellate in nature

Ratio Decidendi

The petition was filed more than three months after the petitioner became aware of the alleged contravention and without seeking leave for late filing. The Constitutional Court has no power to grant leave where none is sought. Furthermore, after a referral under Article 46(7) is refused by the Supreme Court, the petitioner must either appeal or make a fresh referral, not seek direct access under Article 46(1). The issues raised are appellate in nature and can be addressed by the Court of Appeal, where an appeal is already pending. The petition is therefore dismissed as time barred and procedurally improper.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs