Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Seychelles decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Butler-Moos & Anor v Butler (CS 16/2018 and CS 03/2020) [2021] SCSC 855 (8 March 2021)
Seychelles Supreme Court dismissed consolidated defamation claims over family emails and messages, finding limited publication and no proven injury to reputation.
Aglae v Henrie & Anor (CS 98/2017) [2020] SCSC 617 (30 September 2020)
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.
Leon v The Seychelles United Party & Ors (CS 34/2014) [2018] SCSC 8179 (28 May 2018)
The Supreme Court of Seychelles dismissed a libel claim over a newspaper article, holding the plaintiff had not established the defendants’ legal status in the pleadings.
Ramkalawan v Parti Lepep (formerly The Seychelles Peoples Progressive Front) & Anor. (CS 423/2006) [2017] SCSC 867 (29 May 2017)
The Supreme Court of Seychelles held that newspaper articles about the plaintiff were defamatory and awarded him SR 100,000 in damages, plus interest and costs.
Ramkalawan v Gill (CS 111/2013) [2015] SCSC 613 (25 November 2015)
The defendant was found, on the balance of probabilities, to have published defamatory statements on a public blog referring to the plaintiff as a drug trafficker, which were untrue and likely to cause serious harm to the plaintiff's reputation; the defence of lack of publication and fair comment failed as the defendant authored and made the statements public, and the seriousness threshold was met.
Source excerpt
Pillay vs Pillay (CS 15/10) [2013] SCSC 68 (16 October 2013)
The Supreme Court of Seychelles dismissed a defamation claim over a Tamil circular about a Hindu association dispute, finding the statements substantially true and protected as fair comment.
Cesar v Scully & Anor (CS 242/2011) [2012] SCSC 25 (28 June 2012)
The plaint fails to disclose a cause of action in slander as the words were not published to a third party, and in libel as the publication does not refer to the plaintiff and no innuendo is pleaded; therefore, the plaint is struck out.
Source excerpt
Prea v Seychelles People Progressive Front & Anor (CS 7/2004) [2007] SCSC 10 (28 September 2007)
The defendants published defamatory statements about the plaintiff, causing injury to his reputation. The offer of amends was not made as soon as practicable and was not accepted, thus not constituting a defence but serving as mitigation. Considering the plaintiff's public position, the nature of the libel, and relevant precedents, the court awards Rs.70,000 in damages with costs.
Source excerpt
Lalanne v Regar Publications Pty Ltd & Ors (CS 226/2002) [2006] SCSC 94 (23 October 2006)
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
Meme v Seychelles National Party and Others (73 of 2002) [2004] SCSC 3 (27 January 2004)
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
Explore more
