Valabhji & Or v ACCS (CM 138 of 2024) [2025] SCSC 113 (8 July 2025)

Valabhji & Or v ACCS (CM 138 of 2024) [2025] SCSC 113 (8 July 2025)

The Court holds that only properly particularised and evidenced legal fees and disbursements may be paid from restrained funds, subject to judicial oversight and pre-approval. Bulk or standing authorisations for disbursements are not permitted. The 2nd Applicant's personal expenses cannot be paid from restrained funds unless she demonstrates lack of access to unrestrained assets. Affidavits sworn on behalf of the ACCS without exhibited written authority are procedurally defective, but the substantive position on judicial oversight and payment mechanisms stands.

Citation
[2025] SCSC 113
Parties
1st Applicant: Mukesh Valabhji; 2nd Applicant: Laura Valabhji; Respondent: Anti-Corruption Commission Seychelles (ACCS)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
8 July 2025
Case Number
CM 138 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Application for Variation of Restraint Order / Ruling on Application for Variation of Restraint Order
Outcome
Application allowed in part, refused in part
Legal Topics
Variation of Restraint Order, Legal Expenses From Restrained Funds, Judicial Oversight, Delegation of Authority, Personal Expenses, Procedural Defects in Affidavits
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Anti Money Laundering Asset Forfeiture Variation of Restraint Order Legal Expenses From Restrained Funds Judicial Oversight Delegation of Authority Personal Expenses +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mukesh Valabhji

1st Applicant

Laura Valabhji

2nd Applicant

Anti-Corruption Commission Seychelles (ACCS)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Variation of Restraint Order / Ruling on Application for Variation of Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Restraint Order should be varied to allow payment of legal fees, disbursements, and personal expenses from restrained funds
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Applicant's personal expenses can be paid from restrained funds given her access to unrestrained assets
  3. 3 Whether bulk or standing authorisations for legal disbursements are permissible under the Anti-Money Laundering Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court holds that only properly particularised and evidenced legal fees and disbursements may be paid from restrained funds, subject to judicial oversight and pre-approval. Bulk or standing authorisations for disbursements are not permitted. The 2nd Applicant's personal expenses cannot be paid from restrained funds unless she demonstrates lack of access to unrestrained assets. Affidavits sworn on behalf of the ACCS without exhibited written authority are procedurally defective, but the substantive position on judicial oversight and payment mechanisms stands.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part, refused in part

Orders

  • 1st Applicant allowed to pay agreed disbursements to Ms Samantha Aglae (SCR 19,461.71 and €243.68) and Mr France Bonte (SCR 900) from SIMBCL (Nouvobanq) account.
  • Application for payment of 2nd Applicant's personal expenses and disbursements on her behalf refused unless up-to-date bank statements show lack of unrestrained funds.