Seychelles Trading Company v Balthilde (MC 2 of 2025) [2025] SCSC 55 (8 April 2025)
There is no rule allowing continuation of due process after the judgment has been executed and the judgment debt paid; the court should not act in futility by granting an extension of time to appeal in such circumstances.
- Citation
- [2025] SCSC 55
- Parties
- Applicant: Seychelles Trading Company; Respondent: Davin Balthilde
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Judgment Date
- 8 April 2025
- Case Number
- MC 2 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Execution of Judgment
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Seychelles Trading Company
Applicant
Davin Balthilde
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can grant an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal after the judgment has been executed and the judgment debt paid
Ratio Decidendi
There is no rule allowing continuation of due process after the judgment has been executed and the judgment debt paid; the court should not act in futility by granting an extension of time to appeal in such circumstances.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal out of time is dismissed
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment