Seychelles Case Law

The ACCS v Valabhji & Ors (CO 114 of 2021)

The ACCS v Valabhji & Ors (CO 114 of 2021) [2024] SCSC 117 (22 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

CO 114 of 2021

Leave to amend charges is granted in part: trial is stayed pending determination by Constitutional Court on jurisdiction and retrospectivity; leave to proceed with money laundering counts is subject to Constitutional Court decision; leave to file amended count 1 is granted; leave to file amended charges for official corruption and conspiracy to launder money is denied due to defects; defective counts are struck out but may be corrected and refiled; remaining charges stay on record pending Constitutional Court outcome.

Source excerpt

• Amendment of charges
• Jurisdiction of prosecuting authority
• Money laundering
• Official corruption
• Fair trial rights
• Procedural defects

Read case analysis

Valabhji v The Republic & Ors (MA 205/2023 (Arising in CP 09/2022))

Valabhji v The Republic & Ors (MA 205/2023 (Arising in CP 09/2022)) [2023] SCCC 8 (21 November 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

MA 205/2023 (Arising in CP 09/2022)

The court found that since the constitutional petition specifically challenged charges by number, and those charges were subject to amendment in the criminal proceedings, it would be imprudent and potentially futile to proceed with the constitutional petition before the criminal court determined whether to allow the amendments. Therefore, a stay of the constitutional proceedings was necessary to avoid wasted effort and to protect the applicant's right to a fair hearing.

Source excerpt

• Stay of proceedings
• Amendment of charges
• Right to fair hearing
• Retrospective application of law
• Jurisdiction of prosecuting authority

Read case analysis

Neddy Micock & Anor v R (SCA 14 of 2018)

Neddy Micock & Anor v R (SCA 14 of 2018) [2019] SCCA 12 (9 May 2019)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 14 of 2018

The offences were committed when the Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 was in force and are preserved by the savings provisions of the 2016 Act and the Interpretation and General Provisions Act. The evidence, though circumstantial, was corroborated and sufficient to prove the elements of importation and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. Discrepancies in evidence did not undermine the convictions. The chain of custody of exhibits was maintained. No improper reliance was placed on extraneous evidence. The sentences imposed were within the law and not manifestly excessive given the quantity and nature…

Source excerpt

• Importation of controlled drugs
• Conspiracy to import controlled drugs
• Sentencing
• Chain of custody
• Evidentiary discrepancies
• Retrospective application of law

Read case analysis

Jules Labrosse v R (SCA 22 of 2015)

Jules Labrosse v R (SCA 22 of 2015) [2017] SCCA 28 (10 August 2017)

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

SCA 22 of 2015

The Court of Appeal dismissed a prison warden’s sentence-only appeal, holding that six years’ imprisonment for drug possession was not manifestly harsh.

• Sentencing
• Possession of controlled drugs
• Aggravating and mitigating factors
• Retrospective application of law
• Controlled-drugs
• Aggravating-factors

Read case analysis

Bouchereau & Anor v Superintendent of Prisons & Anor (CP 2 of 2013)

Bouchereau & Anor v Superintendent of Prisons & Anor (CP 2 of 2013) [2013] SCCC 7 (30 July 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CP 2 of 2013

The Prisons (Amendment) Act 2008 is not inconsistent with the Constitution as the classification is based on the seriousness of the offence and serves a legitimate objective. The removal of remission does not amount to a heavier penalty than the maximum prescribed by law, and remission is not an absolute right. The Petitioners commenced their sentences after the amendment came into force and are not entitled to remission.

Source excerpt

• Remission of sentence
• Discrimination
• Legitimate expectation
• Retrospective application of law

Read case analysis

Bradburn & Anor v Superintendent of Prisons & Anor (CP 9 of 2010)

Bradburn & Anor v Superintendent of Prisons & Anor (CP 9 of 2010) [2012] SCCC 4 (12 June 2012)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CP 9 of 2010

The amendment to the Prison Act is not discriminatory, does not amount to an ex post facto law, and does not contravene any constitutional right of the petitioners. Remission is a conditional privilege, not a constitutional right. The amendment applies equally to all prisoners convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act and does not retrospectively create or enhance penalties.

Source excerpt

• Remission of sentence
• Discrimination
• Retrospective application of law
• Equal protection of laws
• Fair trial

Read case analysis

Mares Corp v Financial Intelligence Unit (No. 63 of 2011)

Mares Corp v Financial Intelligence Unit (No. 63 of 2011) [2012] SCSC 21 (3 June 2012)

Court

Supreme Court

Case number

No. 63 of 2011

The respondent has no legal authority to continue freezing the applicant's account as there is no ongoing legal proceeding before the court, no court order authorising the freeze, and the respondent has failed to comply with the Court of Appeal's directive to commence proceedings. The continued freezing of the account is unjust, oppressive, and an abuse of the court's process.

Source excerpt

• Freezing of bank accounts
• Retrospective application of law
• Abuse of process
• Jurisdiction of court

Read case analysis