Seychelles Case Law

Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd v Eastern European Engineering Limited (CC 17 of 2016)

Vijay Construction (Pty) Ltd v Eastern European Engineering Limited (CC 17 of 2016) [2024] SCSC 119 (26 July 2024)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CC 17 of 2016

The Plaintiff's claim for rent and damages is dismissed because the period September 2012 to May 2014 was already compensated by the arbitral award, and for the period after May 2014, the Plaintiff failed to prove the temporary buildings were reusable or that it suffered actual loss from not being able to use them elsewhere. The Plaintiff's pleadings did not adequately set out the material facts for a claim based on loss of use, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the claim on a balance of probabilities.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Res judicata
• Damages
• Pleadings
• Arbitration agreement
• Ownership of temporary buildings

Read case analysis

Baizanis & Ors v WM Brands One Limited

Baizanis & Ors v WM Brands One Limited [2022] SCSC 1125 (30 November 2022)

Court

Supreme Court

The Defendant, by failing to honour withdrawal requests and by posting fraudulent trades and performance figures, committed a fault in law (delict) which directly caused the Plaintiffs' financial losses. The Plaintiffs proved, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of fault, damage, and a causal link. Judgment is entered for the Plaintiffs for the amounts claimed.

Source excerpt

• Fraud
• Breach of delictual responsibility
• Cryptocurrency investment
• Damages
• Omissions
• Online investment platforms

Read case analysis

Public Utilities Company v Chelle Medical Limited (SCA 42 of 2019)

Public Utilities Company v Chelle Medical Limited (SCA 42 of 2019) [2021] SCCA 78 (17 December 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 42 of 2019

The Court of Appeal dismissed a public utility’s appeal, holding that its plaint failed to clearly plead whether liability was direct under Article 1382 or vicarious under Article 1384.

• Pleadings
• Cause of action
• Vicarious liability
• Striking out pleadings
• Costs
• Cause-of-action

Read case analysis

AG v St.Ange (SCA 70 of 2019)

AG v St.Ange (SCA 70 of 2019) [2021] SCCA 44 (13 August 2021)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 70 of 2019

The Government of Seychelles, as a moral person, is liable under Article 1382 of the Civil Code for its own acts committed through its organs. The withdrawal of endorsement for Mr. St. Ange's candidature constituted a fault in law, causing him damage. Proof of faute lourde is not required; simple fault suffices. Mr. St. Ange is entitled to recover reasonable campaign expenses, loss of earnings as Minister, and moral damages. The trial judge erred in the quantum of damages and in finding contributory negligence where it was not pleaded.

Source excerpt

• State liability
• Delictual liability
• Moral persons
• Damages
• Quantum of damages
• Right to work

Read case analysis

Kasi Trading v United Africa Feeder Line & Ors (CS 109/2020)

Kasi Trading v United Africa Feeder Line & Ors (CS 109/2020) [2021] SCSC 971 (30 July 2021)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 109/2020

The Supreme Court of Seychelles dismissed a delict claim as prescribed, holding that an email acknowledging receipt of the claim did not interrupt prescription.

• Prescription of actions
• Damages for loss of goods
• Liability for fire at port
• Prescription-of-actions
• Delict-tort
• Damages-for-lost-goods

Read case analysis

Maria v Fanchette (CS 97/2019)

Maria v Fanchette (CS 97/2019) [2021] SCSC 868 (31 March 2021)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 97/2019

The Defendant admitted to withdrawing the sum of SCR 330,000 from the Plaintiff's account but only had permission to withdraw reasonable amounts for daily living expenses, not the full amount withdrawn. Her conduct constituted an error of judgment not expected of a prudent person in her circumstances, rendering her liable for the excess withdrawn. The reasonable living expenses were assessed at half the amount, making her liable to refund SCR 165,000 to the Plaintiff.

Source excerpt

• Faute
• Unlawful withdrawal of funds
• Consent in financial transactions
• Damages assessment

Read case analysis

Joubert V Philoe & Ors (CS 75/2014)

Joubert V Philoe & Ors (CS 75/2014) [2016] SCSC 243 (5 April 2016)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 75/2014

The Plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action against the 3rd and 4th Defendants, so the first plea in limine litis is not entertained at this stage. However, the action against the 4th Defendant is prescribed by Section 3 of the Public Officers (Protection) Act, as the cause of action arose on 14th March 2012 and the suit was filed more than six months later. The 4th Defendant is therefore struck off the Plaint.

Source excerpt

• Plea in limine litis
• Reasonable cause of action
• Prescription
• Public officers protection

Read case analysis

Moustache and others vs Barclays Banks Seychelles Ltd (CS 156.2012)

Moustache and others vs Barclays Banks Seychelles Ltd (CS 156.2012) [2014] SCSC 84 (7 March 2014)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 156.2012

Employees sued over a pension scheme switch, alleging misleading assurances and undervalued transfers. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim with costs.

• Defined benefit pension schemes
• Defined contribution pension schemes
• Negligent misstatement
• Prescription
• Misrepresentation
• Employee benefits

Read case analysis

Rose v Valentin (CS 288/1998)

Rose v Valentin (CS 288/1998) [1999] SCSC 8 (29 September 1999)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 288/1998

Section 26 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1992 (Cap 124) expressly prohibits any claim for damages arising from the adultery of a party to a marriage, notwithstanding any other written law, including the Civil Code. The plaintiff's action, whether framed as adultery or an adulterous relationship causing estrangement, is barred and cannot be sustained.

Source excerpt

• Adultery
• Damages
• Matrimonial causes act
• Civil code article 1382
• Constitutional law

Read case analysis

Camille v Government of Seychelles (CS 8/1997)

Camille v Government of Seychelles (CS 8/1997) [1998] SCSC 14 (14 September 1998)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 8/1997

The plea of prescription under article 2271 was not waived but reserved to be raised at the trial, and section 90 permits such a procedure. The plaintiff was not prejudiced as he was given an opportunity to rebut the time bar. The plea can therefore be raised at the end of the plaintiff's case.

Source excerpt

• Prescription
• Plea in limine litis
• Vicarious liability

Read case analysis