Talma & Anor v Michel & Ors (2 of 2010) [2010] SCCC 6 (28 September 2010)

Talma & Anor v Michel & Ors (2 of 2010) [2010] SCCC 6 (28 September 2010)

The Government's refusal to consider the petitioner's development proposal for PR 2552 based on a No Development Zone policy was unconstitutional, as the policy was not formulated or implemented in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures under the Town and Country Planning Act, and thus lacked legal force. The petitioner's right to property under article 26(1) was contravened. No discrimination under article 27 was established.

Citation
[2010] SCCC 6
Parties
Petitioner: Talma; Respondent: Michel
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
28 September 2010
Case Number
2 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition by petitioner no 1 dismissed with costs; petition by petitioner no 2 succeeds in part against respondent no 4.
Legal Topics
Right to Property, Equal Protection, Development Control, Government Policy, Environmental Regulation
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Property Law Right to Property Equal Protection Development Control Government Policy Environmental Regulation

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Talma

Petitioner

Michel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Government's declaration of a No Development Zone at Anse Lazio was lawful and constitutional
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to consider the petitioners' development proposal contravened the right to property under article 26(1)
  3. 3 Whether the petitioners suffered discrimination contrary to article 27 of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

The Government's refusal to consider the petitioner's development proposal for PR 2552 based on a No Development Zone policy was unconstitutional, as the policy was not formulated or implemented in accordance with the relevant statutory procedures under the Town and Country Planning Act, and thus lacked legal force. The petitioner's right to property under article 26(1) was contravened. No discrimination under article 27 was established.

Court Disposition

Petition by petitioner no 1 dismissed with costs; petition by petitioner no 2 succeeds in part against respondent no 4.

Orders

  • Declaration that refusal to consider petitioner no 2's development proposal contravenes article 26(1) of the Constitution.
  • No Development Zone policy cannot be basis for refusal to consider development proposal.