Smart Vega Holding Ltd v Ver (MA 271 of 2023 (Arising in CS 102 of 2022)) [2024] SCSC 110 (18 July 2024)

Smart Vega Holding Ltd v Ver (MA 271 of 2023 (Arising in CS 102 of 2022)) [2024] SCSC 110 (18 July 2024)

The Respondent is a non-resident with no assets in Seychelles, and the affidavit in reply was fatally defective for failing to exhibit the emails relied upon. The requirements for security for costs are met, but the amount sought by the Applicant is excessive and could be oppressive. The Court exercises its discretion to grant the application but reduces the amount to a reasonable sum to avoid stifling a genuine claim.

Citation
[2024] SCSC 110
Parties
Applicant: Smart Vega Holding Limited; Respondent: Roger Ver
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
18 July 2024
Case Number
MA 271 of 2023 (Arising in CS 102 of 2022)
Procedural Posture
Civil Application (security for Costs) / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application granted in part
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Non Resident Litigants, Affidavit Evidence, Discretion of Court, Pleadings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Non Resident Litigants Affidavit Evidence Discretion of Court Pleadings

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

Parties

Smart Vega Holding Limited

Applicant

Roger Ver

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application (security for Costs) / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent, as a non-resident with no assets in Seychelles, should be ordered to provide security for costs and damages under section 219(2) of the Seychelles Code of Civil Procedure
  2. 2 Whether the amount sought as security is reasonable or oppressive
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent's affidavit in reply was properly supported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent is a non-resident with no assets in Seychelles, and the affidavit in reply was fatally defective for failing to exhibit the emails relied upon. The requirements for security for costs are met, but the amount sought by the Applicant is excessive and could be oppressive. The Court exercises its discretion to grant the application but reduces the amount to a reasonable sum to avoid stifling a genuine claim.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part

Orders

  • Respondent to provide security for costs and damages in the sum of USD 50,000 to be deposited in the Registry of the Supreme Court within 30 days