State Assurance Corporation v Fontaine (SCA 19 of 1996) [1996] SCCA 33 (28 October 1996)
The appellant has sufficient interest and has adequately explained the delay; the court has discretion to allow the application despite Section 10(2) of Cap 135.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1996] SCCA 33
- Parties
- Appellant Intervener: State Assurance Corporation; Respondent: Gustave Fontaine
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Seychelles
- Case Number
- SCA 19 of 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time as Interested Party
- Outcome
- Application granted
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Interested Party Status
- 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
State Assurance Corporation
Appellant Intervener
Gustave Fontaine
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time as Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant should be granted leave to appeal as an interested party
- 2 Whether the appellant should be allowed to file a notice of appeal out of time
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant has sufficient interest and has adequately explained the delay; the court has discretion to allow the application despite Section 10(2) of Cap 135.
Court Disposition
Application granted
Orders
- Leave to appeal as an interested party granted
- Notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SITTING IN THE SEYCHELLES COURT OF APPEAL ON MONDAY THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996 AT 9.00 AM BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS E. O. AYOOLA, JA, L. E. VENCHARD JA, M. A. ADAM JA STATE ASSURANCE CORPORATION V GUSTAVE FONTAINE IP s E c .4?), Civil Appeal No. 19-of T996 Mr. K. Shah for the appellant - intervener Mr. P. Boulle for the respondent Ruling We think there is merit in this application for leave to appeal as an interested party in this matter and to file a notice of appeal out of time. The facts relied on by the appellant have not been denied. We do not think on the facts of this case section 10(2) of Cap 135 automatically precludes this court from exercising a discretion to allow an insurer to appeal as an interested person from a judgment. We find that the appellant has sufficient interest in the matter and has adequately explained reasons for the delay in appealing. The proposed grounds of appeal show that there are prima facie grounds why the appeal should be heard. The application is granted and we order as prayed. Notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days. t1.4“ -' I p,,,.. 12/7 tAint, E. O AYOOLA Justice of Appeal L,,4) L. E VENCHARD Justice of Appeal (-\-__ 4\7----\- ' CI- M A ADAM Justice of Appeal