R v Valabhji & Ors (CO 04 of 2022) [2025] SCSC 117 (27 May 2025)
The Supreme Court dismissed the notice of motion for recusal as incompetent because it has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals or reviews against its interlocutory rulings in criminal proceedings, nor to grant constitutional remedies, which are reserved for the Constitutional Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] SCSC 117
- Parties
- Prosecutor: The Republic; 1st Accused: Mukesh Valabhji; 2nd Accused: Laura Valabhji; 3rd Accused: Leslie Benoiton; 4th Accused: Frank Marie
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- CO 04 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Recusal
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Recusal of Judge, Fair Hearing, Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Republic
Prosecutor
Mukesh Valabhji
1st Accused
Laura Valabhji
2nd Accused
Leslie Benoiton
3rd Accused
Frank Marie
4th Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application for Recusal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the presiding judge should recuse himself on grounds of alleged obstruction of fair hearing
- 2 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant constitutional remedies or entertain appeals/reviews against its own interlocutory rulings
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court dismissed the notice of motion for recusal as incompetent because it has no jurisdiction to entertain appeals or reviews against its interlocutory rulings in criminal proceedings, nor to grant constitutional remedies, which are reserved for the Constitutional Court.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Notice of motion for recusal is dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable! Not Reportable! Redact C04/2022 In the matter between: THE REPUBLIC (rep. Mr Powles alongside Mr Thachet Miss Naidoo and Ms Rea Alcindor) and MUKESH VALABHJI (rep by Mr James Lewis alongside Mr France Bonte) LAURA VALABHJI (rep by Ms Scott alongside Mrs Aglae & Ms Hockings) LESLIE BENOITON (rep. by Mr Basil Hoareau) MR FRANK MARIE (rep by Mr Joel Camille) I" Accused 2nd Accused ]I'd Accused 4th Accused Neutral Citation: Before: Heard: Delivered: The Republic vIs Valabhji & Ors (CO 4/2022 [2025] 27 May 2025 Govinden CJ, 27 May 2025 27 May 2025 RULING GOVINDENCJ [1] I've considered the notice of motion and affidavit of 1st accused dated the 27lhof May 2025, asking for recusal of myself as the presiding judge in this case and such other orders as maybe just and necessary. [2] At paragraph 38 of the motion, the Applicant avers that the Court is taking active and deliberate steps to obstruct his constitutional right to fair hearing and that this cannot be allowed to happen. The Court considers that this notice of motion to be either an appeal against its previous Order, dated the 26th of May 2025, or a prayer for constitutional remedies, especially given that the right to fair hearing under Article 19(1) is averred and at paragraph 38 where the Court is said to be taking steps to obstruct constitutional right to fair hearing. [3] The Court cannot grant both remedies as there is no right of appeal or review against its interlocutory Rulings within those criminal proceedings, and this Court also has no constitutional jurisdiction, which is reserved specifically to the Constitutional Court under Article 46(7) of the Constitution. [4] Accordingly, this notice of motion is incompetent and it is it dismissed. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 27 May 2025 Govinden CJ 2