The Supreme Court of Seychelles set aside a 13 July 2023 injunction and directed service of the order on the Land Registrar to lift related property restrictions.
The Supreme Court ordered summonses for bank, licensing and pension records relating to the respondent and named businesses, returnable on 3 February 2026.
Summons to produce documents
Disclosure of bank accounts and statements
Disclosure of licences and vehicle registration details
The Attorney General v Krishnamart &Company Proprietary Limited (SCA 15/2025 (Arising in MA 288/2024 out of CS 88 of 2024)) [2025] SCCA 30 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
SCA 15/2025 (Arising in MA 288/2024 out of CS 88 of 2024)
Compliance with the formal requirements of section 42 SCCP constitutes sufficient service; the statute does not require proof of likelihood of actual notice or ownership of the premises. The Supreme Court erred by imposing additional requirements not found in the statute.
The Estate of the Late Andre Delhomme v The Attorney General (SCA11/2025) and The Attorney General v The Estate of the Late Andre Delhomme And (SCA 12/2025) [2025] (Arising in CS 79/2020) (15 December 2025) (2025) [2025] SCCA 34 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
2025
The Court of Appeal held the Estate had not proved non-payment of SCR 1.5 million and allowed the Attorney General’s appeal, dismissing the Estate’s claim.
Gamatis & Another v Bank of Baroda ((SCA MA 05/2025) - (Arising in SCA 16/2025) And (SCA 16/2025) - (Arising in CM 41/2024) [2025]15 December 2025)) [2025] SCCA 32 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
(SCA MA 05/2025) - (Arising in SCA 16/2025) And (SCA 16/2025) - (Arising in CM 41/2024) [2025]15 December 2025)
The appeal is barred by section 212 of the Immovable Property (Judicial Sales) Act because the appellants did not raise any objection at the time of adjudication. The statutory bar is absolute and precludes appellate review, regardless of subsequent claims of unfairness or new evidence. The documents relied on by the appellants did not constitute a valid objection under the Act, and the application to adduce new evidence fails to meet the legal threshold.
The Attorney General v Krishnamart &Company Proprietary Limited (SCA 15/2025 (Arising in MA 288/2024 out of CS 88 of 2024)) [2025] SCCA 31 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
SCA 15/2025 (Arising in MA 288/2024 out of CS 88 of 2024)
The statutory framework for substituted service under section 42 SCCP is exhaustive and requires a factual nexus between the address used and the defendant. The judge’s discretion to refuse substituted service was properly exercised where there was no evidence that affixing the summons at the last known business address would bring notice to the respondent, and ownership or ongoing association with the premises was lacking.
Aux Cayes Fin Tech Co Ltd v Liu ([2025] Civil Appeal SCA 17/2025 (15 December 2025) (Arising in MA 34/2024 out of CS125 of 2023)) [2025] SCCA 23 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
[2025] Civil Appeal SCA 17/2025 (15 December 2025) (Arising in MA 34/2024 out of CS125 of 2023)
The appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial judge misapplied the law, overlooked relevant considerations, or reached a plainly unreasonable conclusion. The judge’s assessment that the claimed sums were oppressive and inadequately substantiated was justified, and the quantum of SCR 5,000 was within the reasonable exercise of judicial discretion under section 219 SCCP.
Gonzalves v Seychelles Investment Board ([2025] (15 December 2025) SCA 25/2025 (Arising in MA 155/2025 and MC 63/2025)) [2025] SCCA 22 (15 December 2025)
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
[2025] (15 December 2025) SCA 25/2025 (Arising in MA 155/2025 and MC 63/2025)
The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as of right against the refusal of leave to proceed with judicial review; Rule 8 of the Rules 1995 requires leave of the Supreme Court before such an appeal can be filed. The Appellant did not comply with this requirement, and there was no reviewable decision exhibited. The learned Judge was correct in refusing leave to proceed with judicial review.