Seychelles Case Law

Ernesta v Bastienne (SCA 38 of 2018)

Ernesta v Bastienne (SCA 38 of 2018) [2020] SCCA 37 (18 December 2020)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 38 of 2018

The appellant failed to prove the truth of the defamatory allegations or to meet the standard of responsible journalism required for qualified privilege or publication in the public interest. The damages awarded were consistent with precedent, adjusted for inflation, and not manifestly excessive.

Source excerpt

• Justification defence
• Qualified privilege
• Publication in public interest
• Damages for defamation
• Responsible journalism

Read case analysis

Aglae v Henrie & Anor (CS 98/2017)

Aglae v Henrie & Anor (CS 98/2017) [2020] SCSC 617 (30 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 98/2017

The Supreme Court of Seychelles found a newspaper article defamatory, rejected truth, fair comment, and public interest defences, and awarded SCR 10,000 plus costs and an injunction.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Damages
• Injunction

Read case analysis

Talma & Ors v Printec Press Holdings Pty Ltd (SCA 37 of 2017)

Talma & Ors v Printec Press Holdings Pty Ltd (SCA 37 of 2017) [2020] SCCA 8 (21 August 2020)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 37 of 2017

The Court of Appeal held that defamation was proved, but damages were not. It rejected an unpleaded justification defence and dismissed the appeal on damages.

• Defamation
• Damages
• Pleadings
• Justification
• Right of reply
• Media-law

Read case analysis

Bastienne v Ernesta & Anor (CS 108/2016)

Bastienne v Ernesta & Anor (CS 108/2016) [2018] SCSC 8215 (10 July 2018)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 108/2016

The Supreme Court of Seychelles found a newspaper article defamatory of Minister Charles Bastienne and awarded SCR 600,000 in damages against the editor and printer.

• Defamation
• Freedom of expression
• Damages
• Justification
• Qualified privilege
• Media-law

Read case analysis

Sbc v Beaufond & Ors (SCA 29 of 2013)

Sbc v Beaufond & Ors (SCA 29 of 2013) [2015] SCCA 21 (28 August 2015)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 29 of 2013

The Court of Appeal allowed a media defendant’s appeal in a defamation case, holding the respondents failed to prove the words used or that publication occurred.

• Defamation
• Abuse of rights
• Burden of proof
• Abuse-of-rights
• Burden-of-proof
• Media-law

Read case analysis

Seychelles National Party v Michel (SCA 4 of 2009)

Seychelles National Party v Michel (SCA 4 of 2009) [2010] SCCA 9 (14 August 2010)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 4 of 2009

The Court held that the 'scarcity of spectrum' argument does not justify the restriction on political parties' access to broadcasting licences. However, the blanket ban imposed by the 2006 Amendment does not violate article 22 of the Constitution, as such a restriction is permissible to protect democratic values and voter equality, provided it is implemented through an independent regulatory body as required by article 168. The State's failure to establish such a body renders the application of the ban capricious and not fully compliant with constitutional obligations.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of expression
• Broadcasting regulation
• Political party rights
• Constitutional interpretation
• Independent regulatory bodies

Read case analysis

Lalanne v Regar Publications Pty Ltd & Ors (CS 226/2002)

Lalanne v Regar Publications Pty Ltd & Ors (CS 226/2002) [2006] SCSC 94 (23 October 2006)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 226/2002

The publication was defamatory, made recklessly and maliciously without proper investigation or factual basis, and none of the defences of truth, qualified privilege, or fair comment were available to the defendants. The plaintiff was entitled to damages for injury to reputation and exemplary damages.

Source excerpt

• Libel
• Qualified privilege
• Fair comment
• Damages

Read case analysis

Mancienne v Government of Seychelles (SCA 10 of 2005)

Mancienne v Government of Seychelles (SCA 10 of 2005) [2005] SCCA 10 (20 May 2005)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 10 of 2005

A person is not entitled to defy a court order on the ground that it is void or illegal; such orders must be obeyed until set aside by a competent court. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction to issue the interim injunction, and the appellant's disobedience constituted contempt of court. The right to freedom of expression is subject to lawful restrictions necessary to maintain the authority and independence of the courts. The conviction for contempt was correct, but the sentence imposed was excessive and was reduced on appeal.

Source excerpt

• Contempt of court
• Freedom of expression
• Jurisdiction of superior courts
• Due process
• Interim injunctions

Read case analysis

Meme v Seychelles National Party and Others (73 of 2002)

Meme v Seychelles National Party and Others (73 of 2002) [2004] SCSC 3 (27 January 2004)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

73 of 2002

The statements published in the newsletter referred to the plaintiff, were defamatory by innuendo, and the defendants failed to prove justification. The plaintiff suffered injury to her reputation and professional standing, warranting an award of damages.

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Libel
• Damages
• Justification
• Innuendo

Read case analysis

Pillay v Regar Publications (Pty) Ltd & Ors (CS 11/1996)

Pillay v Regar Publications (Pty) Ltd & Ors (CS 11/1996) [1997] SCSC 2 (22 January 1997)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 11/1996

Defamation action over a newspaper article about ministerial land transactions. The court found the article defamatory and rejected privilege, fair comment, and justification defenses.

• Libel
• Qualified privilege
• Fair comment
• Justification
• Damages
• Malice

Read case analysis