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

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

Ramkalawan v Parti Lepep (formerly The Seychelles Peoples Progressive Front) & Anor. (CS 458/2006)

Ramkalawan v Parti Lepep (formerly The Seychelles Peoples Progressive Front) & Anor. (CS 458/2006) [2017] SCSC 868 (29 May 2017)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 458/2006

The Defendants published statements imputing violence, sabotage, and criminality to the Plaintiff without adducing evidence of truth or fair comment. The statements were defamatory, and the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege were not established. The Plaintiff’s high standing warranted damages, but the award was set at SR 100,000, reflecting comparative case law and the context of publication.

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Damages
• Fair comment
• Qualified privilege
• Freedom of expression

Read case analysis

Pillay vs Pillay (CS 15/10)

Pillay vs Pillay (CS 15/10) [2013] SCSC 68 (16 October 2013)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CS 15/10

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.

• Defamation
• Libel
• Innocent dissemination
• Fair comment
• Justification
• Qualified privilege

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

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

Lucas v Labonte & Ors (SCA 6 of 1996)

Lucas v Labonte & Ors (SCA 6 of 1996) [1996] SCCA 13 (30 October 1996)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 6 of 1996

The Court of Appeal upheld dismissal of a defamation claim, holding the publication was justified because the appellant was in fact treated as a suspect.

• Libel
• Justification
• Qualified privilege
• Vicarious liability
• Damages
• Defamation

Read case analysis

Blackburn v Alton (SCA 29 of 1994)

Blackburn v Alton (SCA 29 of 1994) [1996] SCCA 9 (31 January 1996)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 29 of 1994

The defence of qualified privilege was defeated because the respondent acted in bad faith by unnecessarily copying the defamatory statements to the Licensing Authority and using uncalled-for strong language, which amounted to malice.

Source excerpt

• Qualified privilege
• Malice
• Damages

Read case analysis