Seychelles Case Law

The Seychelles Human Rights Commission and Others v The Speaker of the National Assembly of Seychelles and Others (SCA CL 04/2023)

The Seychelles Human Rights Commission and Others v The Speaker of the National Assembly of Seychelles and Others (SCA CL 04/2023) [2024] ((Arising in CP 07/2022) (3 May 2024)) [2024] SCCA 14 (3 May 2024)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

(Arising in CP 07/2022) (3 May 2024)

The Constitutional Court erred in dismissing the recusal motion as frivolous and vexatious without following the Recusal Guidelines, failed to provide a fair hearing to the judges concerned, and misapplied the doctrine of necessity and duty to hear. The proper procedure requires all judges whose recusal is sought to place their views on record, and if necessary, for acting judges to be appointed to ensure an impartial bench.

Source excerpt

• Recusal of judges
• Doctrine of necessity
• Apparent bias
• Judicial independence

Read case analysis

Seychelles Human Rights Commission & Ors v Speaker of the National Assembly of Seychelles & Ors (MA 230 of 2022)

Seychelles Human Rights Commission & Ors v Speaker of the National Assembly of Seychelles & Ors (MA 230 of 2022) [2023] SCCC 1 (24 January 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

MA 230 of 2022

The court dismissed a broad recusal motion seeking to disqualify the entire judiciary from hearing a constitutional challenge to the Tenth Amendment.

• Recusal of judges
• Doctrine of necessity
• Judicial independence
• Apparent bias
• Appointment of judges
• Judicial-recusal

Read case analysis

Poiret & Ors v The Seychelles Pension Fund & Ors (CP 5 of 2020)

Poiret & Ors v The Seychelles Pension Fund & Ors (CP 5 of 2020) [2020] SCCC 553 (21 July 2020)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CP 5 of 2020

The Constitutional Court of Seychelles issued remarks on counsel’s duty to the court, stressing proper appellate avenues and criticizing attacks on judicial integrity.

• Contempt of court
• Professional conduct of advocates
• Judicial independence
• Judicial-independence
• Contempt-of-court
• Professional-conduct

Read case analysis

The Estate of The Late Berard Fanchette v The Attorney General (SCA 12 of 2014)

The Estate of The Late Berard Fanchette v The Attorney General (SCA 12 of 2014) [2018] SCCA 7 (10 May 2018)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 12 of 2014

The Attorney General cannot be held vicariously liable for the acts of the Family Tribunal, which enjoys statutory immunity for acts done in good faith; no cause of action lies in the absence of malice or bad faith.

Source excerpt

• Vicarious liability
• Delictual liability
• Statutory immunity
• Judicial independence

Read case analysis

Dubois & Ors v Michel & Ors (CP 4 of 2014)

Dubois & Ors v Michel & Ors (CP 4 of 2014) [2016] SCCC 23 (24 October 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CP 4 of 2014

The majority of the court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case of constitutional contravention, that the affidavit was defective as not all deponents signed, and that the petition did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, warranting dismissal. One judge held that the defect in the affidavit only invalidated the petition for the non-signing petitioner, and the remaining petitioners had locus standi to proceed.

Source excerpt

• Locus standi
• Affidavit requirements
• Judicial independence
• Presidential prerogative
• Citizenship and eligibility
• Striking out pleadings

Read case analysis

Dhanjee v Michel & Ors (CP 15 of 2011)

Dhanjee v Michel & Ors (CP 15 of 2011) [2012] SCCC 1 (17 January 2012)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CP 15 of 2011

The Constitutional Court held that the CAA’s recommendation to extend a non-citizen judge’s term was unconstitutional and the President’s appointment void.

• Interpretation of constitutional provisions
• Judicial independence
• Appointment and tenure of judges
• Ultra vires acts
• Jurisdiction of constitutional court
• Constitutional-law

Read case analysis

Ponoo v Attorney-general (5 of 2010)

Ponoo v Attorney-general (5 of 2010) [2010] SCCC 4 (16 November 2010)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

5 of 2010

The provisions of section 27A(1)(c)(i) and section 291(a) of the Penal Code do not contravene articles 1, 119(2), or 16 of the Constitution. The mandatory minimum sentence does not violate the principle of separation of powers, judicial independence, or amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment as it is not grossly disproportionate and the judiciary retains discretion within the prescribed range.

Source excerpt

• Mandatory minimum sentences
• Separation of powers
• Judicial independence
• Proportionality in sentencing
• Cruel and inhuman punishment

Read case analysis

Simeon v Attorney-general (1 of 2010)

Simeon v Attorney-general (1 of 2010) [2010] SCCC 3 (28 September 2010)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

1 of 2010

Section 29 and the Second Schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act do not contravene articles 1, 119(2), or 16 of the Constitution. The legislature is empowered to prescribe mandatory minimum sentences, and such sentences are not unconstitutional unless they are grossly disproportionate to the offence. In this case, a ten-year sentence for trafficking in a class A drug is not excessive or shocking and does not amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

Source excerpt

• Separation of powers
• Judicial independence
• Mandatory sentencing
• Cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment
• Drug offences

Read case analysis

Rene v Regar Publication & Ors and Rene v Seychelles National Party & Ors (CS 11/2001)

Rene v Regar Publication & Ors and Rene v Seychelles National Party & Ors (CS 11/2001) [2002] SCSC 16 (15 November 2002)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 11/2001

The Supreme Court refused to refer constitutional objections in defamation suits by France Albert Rene, holding the issues were frivolous, vexatious, or already settled.

• Presidential immunity
• Fair trial rights
• Judicial independence
• Equal protection
• Referral of constitutional questions
• Defamation

Read case analysis