Monday, April 1, 2019


Seychelles Injustice

Our typical Seychelles is filled with injustice and inequality but we are sometimes to blind to see it. The root of these injustice is often born out of bribery, jealousy and political victimization.

The machines or tools that makes this work has switched gears since the so called (15 lo 10) now there is more selective prosecution by state and equally a new style of policing by state forces for each and every class of seychellois or seychelloise.

Note that i used the word "class"; in fact class still exist in our little Seychelles and those who knows are targeted by ....... and in all sort's of manner.

A perfect example would be me; yes myself MR. Jean-Paul Isaac.

I recently came to the know that at the Mont Fleuri Police Station there is a summons for me to appear in the magistrate court in town over none payment of a Fixed Penalty issued by the Republic for and on behalf of the Seychelles police force precisely the traffic unit against me.

See summons below:

The above as i had mention is the full snapshots of the summons that was served onto me at the Mont fleuri police station last week.

The Irony

As from today and to my knowledge there have been many issued traffic violation tickets but thus far most are yet to be summoned or prosecuted to that effect. So you can imagine to my surprise as to why over such short notice i have been bumped up the prosecution ladder? Why me?

 The money question is how does one get to find this out?

Many are now wondering why i am saying malice or neglect duty!

So see below for a snap
shot of a receipt for the above charges and  fixed penalty paid at the Seychelles supreme court by me on the same day it was issued by a w/pc under the guidance of one SGT Emile Fred.

If anyone reading this would refer to the date of the payment, the vehicle registration and the reference number of the fixed penalty i paid; you would see that there is no reason as to why i should be summoned to the courts.

Anyway this happens a lot in Seychelles. It is not the first time and it would not be the last. Whether this is malice action over articles i may have written on officers miss conduct that led to his or her disciplinary action past or present or be it a politically motivated move, it is safe to say that the police force has failed to do their duty.

What is Redress for the victim in this case?

Well your redress is close to none. I say this because state authority/entity negligence here in Seychelles is highly tolerated and rewarded while we the people we are highly penalized and condemn.

Why write this article?

Well as a champion advocate of human right's both locally and internationally this wrong has to be exposed. I am lucky i kept my receipt but for those who did not?

Most Seychellois does not know the law and the course of redress under the laws of Seychelles. In many instances people tends to trust the law enforcer's to do it's due diligence meanwhile failing to note that the law upholders are also imperfect or subjected to corrupt practices.

For any other person/s they would have paid their fine, trust the system records and throw away the receipt. When or if they are summoned their would be no receipt to show cause or proof for them.

So two things would have happened:

1. A heavy fine,

2. Jail time.

Both very inconvenient.
This can all happen even if you are in the right and the law is in omission. So who champions the cause and alerts the people when such actions by state operators takes place? Well this is where i come in today. Others should follow in my footsteps.

Your course of redress and cost

If you are not well versed with the laws of Seychelles you must have an attorney present which more or less will cost you more than the fine the magistrate court will sentence you for over lack of proof or payment receipt.

Another is if someone is kind enough to advise you that if you've paid the fine, you can go to the supreme court account's Cashier for a log search in their payment book, where upon confirmation or proof of payment a letter by the same department will be given to you to present to the court's to that effect. Whether there is a cost for the search & letter, just know you are still paying for state forces mistake.

It is unfair to be made to fork over hard earned cash over the state forces failing to do their job.

Note you will have to leave work to attend court, you will have to provide further expanse for the transportation to the courts dependent on the distance you're travelling from. Another is if you fail to attend court despite being in the right their will be an issued warrant of arrest for you and you will be jailed and brought to court in cuffs.

So can we seek damages for such negligence of duty from the state? In this case the police force!

Yes! but it will cost you a bit. So can the magistrate rule that the police compensate you for your troubles over their negligence? Well Yes, but they will rarely side with the people over this.

At most you can simply write to the commissioner of police and demand an explanation from an internal investigation as to how such neglect duty took place. Then use the report to file for damages.

God Bless all Freedom Loving Seychellois & Everyone around the world

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Twenty six Workers To Find themselves Having A Blue Christmas Over Dispute Between The Vijay Company and Havana Club.

The Debacle

The Dispute comes after a case before the rent board is still ongoing on Back payment of rent.

According to a very reliable source the Havana Club Owned by one Gerard Patti a Naturalized Seychellois had issues regarding the Rentals cost to conduct business on the Eden Island premises, Precisely the Eden Plaza which whereby his terms and conditions was open to negotiations.

News has it that upon failure to complete their Eden Island project and surrounded  by many controversy the South African Craig Heeger went to Seychelles government for help whom in turn used its authority the "Seychelles Pension fund" to loan out money to the South African to continue his project. What interest Government had in the affair is still a mystery till today.

The Project shortly saw a giant construction company in its midst  the Vijay construction whereby today that same company manages and allegedly owns the Eden Island Plaza. If someone takes a loan from the bank one cannot sell donate the assets until the loan is paid. In this sweet deal this did not apply as our pension fund money was used without any consent or proper reason.

The Vijay's also naturalized Seychellois family runs as a group from daughter to son and father etc... etc... etc...

Also surrounded in controversy after losing a court case to Savoy and allegedly sacked by an Arab prince owner of the raffles hotel and more.... they have a hand in almost anything lucrative.

In this dispute Vijay whom is leasing to MR. Patti locations at Eden Plaza Payable in USD has had enough of waiting for the authorities to pronounce on a back rent case. They went ahead and took the law into their own hand and restrict access to the locations. According to my source rates from 14,500 USD per month, 2,175 as VAT. Many other expenses over service charge,Store rent, Staff Room Rental, Corridor rental, Gazebo rent and others. all of these rent are payable in USD.

There is a 15% tax on every rental business in Seychelles in this case whether the fifteen percent for Vijay is paid in USD to the Seychelles authority (SRC) Seychelles Revenue Commission is up for debate. If the dollar today is at 14. then one must find money to pay 14. so is this the same case when executing payment to SRC by Vijay or by paying in Seychelles Rupees Vijay gains far more than the exchange rate? Does Vijay pay SRC by Rupees and should they. Now that is another question?

The Main Dispute

With a USD rent totaling around 20,000 USD Per month it is said that MR. Patti went to Negotiate with the Vijay Administrations to request a reduction in amount based on a realistic projection of  business performance. Patti was told to submit a proposal which he did. With an approved lease of 15 years and no objection from the Vijay administration at Eden Plaza, a monthly rent less than the above was accepted by the administration without a single peep. Later dispute arose demanding for back dated rent from Vijay at the Seychelles rent board.
At Present that case is still ongoing and there has not been any order or conclusion given to either parties.

The Military Maneuver By Vijay Administration of Eden Plaza

With no notice nor warning Vijay Administration by the use of its Indian workers chose to restric access to Havana club to MR. Gerard Patti's Worker by boarding the access point using wooden Planks dated that the 14th October 2017.

Meanwhile the rent board case is still ongoing.

On the 22th October 2017 another action this time using cement into the door locks to prevent access.

Case before the rent board still ongoing.

05th November 2017 removal of wooden Planks from the restaurants floor restricting access to customers and preventing any operations. The same time red taping the area with a bogus notice that floor Planks were in need of replacement.

In view that the Planks was a strait froward replacement issue the admin went further to barricade the access doors with a massive cement block and using their Indian workers, notice was place on the block visible to everyone be it tourists staff of other businesses and clients. One would depict that someone really was out to evict the client by any means necessary.

Meanwhile the rent board case is still ongoing.

Havana Clubs Reaction to The Maneuver

The management of Havana Club finding itself not being able to perform by the actions of Vijay Management of Eden Island have moved to have the court over urgency declare that an injunction is served on Vijay so that they can resume their duties while the rent board case is exhausted.

All 26 staff excluding those in management is now at home awaiting the removal of a cement block so that they can make money to feed their familys or have a little something for Christmas.


An in dept investigation is required into the fact that vijay collects USD and SRC collects Rupees From vijay. Maybe an audit over this issue would be a good solution.

The Newspaper Today in Seychelles which interviewed the parties has not yet published on the matter. Many others are also silent though 26 people are on the bench. Why?

This matter as it stands must be sent for mediation and if there are any other alternatives they must be quickly exhausted so that our brothers and sisters can earn a living.

If Vijay wishes to terminate the contract and anew one with Chinese and others visiting the very site they must come clean with Patti. This is now on the streets suggesting that seychellois is being made to suffer because naturalized seychellois has ego and ambitions for profits.

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

Seychelles Politicians Lacks Public Integrity & Respect As Crimes And Pornography Goes Viral!!!

The Seychelles Ideology Of Perfect Paradise Undressed

At the very first glance of the Seychelles pictures and scenery any foreigners or locals coming home would have the idea that they are going or coming to paradise. That Ideology is one false design that is now taking its toll on a once peaceful and respected nation.

The Foreign Invasion Cultures

Amongst every country one name that used to never come up in discussion over moral and social integrity was Seychelles. Seychelles now is not only a hub or home to rich Arabs but a hiding place for those perceived to have robbed their nations of their wealth and dignity. Politicians in Seychelles are some of the highest paid entities with major and different stakes in businesses or ventures.

Seychelles Regarded as a tax haven for off shores, one would have thought that lawyers would be one profession that would make money so much as to out shadow the politician. well those whom thought so is wrong. Seychelles is a place where it is more lucrative to be a lawyer but be a politician as well.

Politics in other words pays better than Legal careers or religion!

Islands sold to Arabs are now being asked to undergo total seclusion from the locals or unwelcome visitors as to protect what goes on in the riches overtime and spare-time. The former plantation club owner tells many stories of such activities. Lately these stories have led to as far as Human trafficking.

So what toll has these actions sanctioned and condoned by politicians had on the Seychellois people?

Well the people truly made it "Sesel Pou Seselwa".

Religions Factor & Their Silence

The top religious beliefs in Seychelles are either dormant or absent from the scene when it comes to moral values and public integrity. If religious Institutions has lost hope what about the organisations?

Religious belief of catholic was shamed when on a religious date the carnival held in Seychelles clashed with one highly respected date on their calendar and the tourism minister chose to go ahead with Brazilian girls parading in their underwear's half naked through town. the churches feedback came a few days after it all went down. Muslims have been criticised to paying off financial assistance to the locals for one to convert to Islam. Many Seychellois have come fort on this matter.

It is equally believed that in order for religious entities to retain their spot in with politicians they tend to not overstep the limitations they are given. One begs to ask whom these guys serve; God Or Politicians?

The Crime Rates In Seychelles

Just a couple of months after Seychelles tourism industry was hit by the plague of drug addicts thieving tourist and ransacking the local communities, the Seychelles saw a graduation whereby shark frenzy went on to the death of two foreigners on holiday. Despite every mass publicity to cover the bad news, Seychelles then graduated to in house guest mysterious deaths. A few well known hotel is now subject of finding guests death in their rooms. If its not the sea it is something else.

Today what has become most terrifying is shopping in the local Indian stores when there is a dispute between the vendor and the client. Local quarrels of Indians go home or i will send you home has graduated to bottle throwing and machete fights whether there are other clients in the shop.

Some local politicians are asking for a legalisation of the drug known as cannabis to a solution against another drug locally tempered with to maximise profit in sale. Some of those drugs are alleged to be causes of some mysterious deaths in Seychelles.

Indecency Protected By Local Laws

In Seychelles one does not need to have a license to make a video or indulge in indecent exposure as the very laws that protects immoral conduct is bypassed by the misuse of the computers act.

Top entities be it from politicians right up to the very people task to uphold public integrity. To wonder why these people are called public figures. Seychelles is a country where it has undergone presidential change in less than a year. The two public figure top individuals both divorced and re - marry conducted or possibility. from the very house that governs.

A former MNA and doctor after his porn activities were exposed was never challenged to his actions but simply resigned and went back to being a doctor, sons and daughters of top officials simply placed their heads high and went on through the community as if they had created a new fashion line for others to exemplar from. Politicians chose to speak of bullying rather than moral values.

Lately the brother of a top minister has a video of him circulate the streets making indecent acts with a vegetable wearing a condom. That's paradise to you. "Fille ens Eguille", as the french would say.

Blame Facebook

Facebook  a faster means and a better way to socialise where no alcohol contributions or transportation is needed is viral locally, equally it is one of the means that many youths draws it daily conclusions of the reality of life and truth from. The misuse of computers act fails to address the importance of such.

Seychellois idea of socialising involves displacement to and from and very very often usage of alcohol. born from many of these social gatherings many accidents have claimed lives and even cause incapacitate to others. So is social media an enemy of the people?

Well everything can be used for a yin or a yang but everything derives from the very persons in the public domain to act with moral integrity. Is it okay to film dirty movies of ones self and store it on a device that can easily be manipulated or stolen? Is it normal for human being to want to film such activities?

Where and who gave these entities their moral education and integrity as a human being? does it not start at home? Why should laws be amended to protect or defend such gross and indecent acts?

What is Seychelles society doing to educate the very people that does these actions and records them?

Paradise Lost

Morally, Socially and a reality Paradise is just another figment of our elders imagination at the moment if nothing is done about it.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Seychelles Freedom or Political Suicide For Seychellois Voters???

The 2015 year is and will be recognized as the year where the oppositions truly confirmed a defeat for the ruling party now known as (Parti Lepep) Peoples Party in Seychelles.

The biggest question now which no one is asking is where do we go from then? There is no Budget, the assembly or parliament is 100% Parti Lepep if the allegations that the leader of opposition (Mr. David Pierre Of The PDM) is a fake. How and when will change be fully operational? Seychelles political parties each has or had  a vision, a plan or a way forward; so the question is what common ground of a way forward will be or has been reached now that they have allied to back one cause which is to remove Parti Lepep from power.

The SNP or Seychelles National Party which has Planned as its primary target once in power a total commitment to eliminate illegal drugs namely heroin and to deal with the untouchable Escobar’s once and for in a mere one year of their coming to power. This is a very good point but is it the top priority for Seychelles Allied Oppositions? Those other political parties had equally good proposals as primary targets should they had come to power. So whats up now?

What will be the new order of priority now? Is it the people of Seychelles? Is it getting back at corruption and the people behind them? Is it Stability, Independence and Forgiveness over the whole of Seychelles?

Well if it is reconciliation we have gone off at a bad start. After many incidents from both sides of parties be it opposition or the outgoing (PL) I decided to investigate internally. After seeing different party supporters talking and hugging each other I attended a motorcade in full PL colors inside an snp function/motorcade. There were no such incidents of intimidation or retaliation rather people under alcohol influence which chose to feud amongst one another. Despite such; this did not make it anymore violent as it was stopped when it even began. Heck I ended up in a dispute with a snp bunch in the stadium car park victoria but I was intact and untouched.

The only confirmed issues where in the districts where instigations from both sides alongside motorways some fanatics were assaulting one another but with quick reaction party members as well as police officials got things under control. The main issue with these incidents is the rampant consummation of alcohol and the violations of traffic regulations by both parties. Police discretion i believe has kept the peace.

It is to be noted that it was confirmed from the actual first round result that when all oppositions allied in votes they oust the ruling party. They were right to celebrate but to the people what comes next is what is needed. Running a country and governing is not a simple job of holding alcohol party handing out food and giving money every now and then.It is to make good on promises and being fair to all citizens dispite our differences.

There is a level of immaturity on both sides where on facebook some PL die hards claims they will die for their party if they lose the Presidentia election 2015 and for some of the oppositions supporters on facebook they also published arrogantly threats of wanting to arrest and imprison "PL" loyalist and alleged corrupt officials without due process. Though stability remains and political leaders have not once confirm either inference above.

Did anyone consider that when and I say when the snp wins the second round with the allied votes they are no longer an opposition but the rulling party? 

Well they actually become the governing party and it is to be noted that since all political parties have allied under a coalition government of national unity then the parliament elections becomes a whole other monster again? The irony here is that even if members of the other political parties will contest the parliament election individually; since they are part of the coalition government this will infringe on their independence to address cause and concerns towards the incoming government of snp for seychellois victims and needs? What will be funny from this is to see party Lepep actually opposing the once oppositions in the national assembly for the minority for once. That is if they do not shut down!

It is good to get rid of a devil but there is also a saying "better the devil you know than the one you don’t right?" Well as I am all for change I believe that we can get to know our own little devil which aspires to run our country as they did months back when (Together) they signed agreements to contest voters register and filed constitutional court cases and conducted protests (As One).
So why have the oppositions not yet come out with a communiqué to tell the supporters of Lalyans Seselwa, (SPSD) Mrs. Amesbury & Independent Candidate Lawyer Philippe Boulee. What’s in it for their investment of  their vote. Any sane politician would never think people are like cattle that once they vote for you; you own them that is (Michelism) especially when there is always greener pastures at every evolution. Many Seychellois whom voted for “Ton Pat” "Alexia or Boulee" is inclusive of defected opposition snp and PL supporters. They will not consent to vote for someone they do not believe in if they already gave them up and are not enlighten about benefits to a such investment by their votes.

Heck! No one goes into business based on verbal inputs. Everything is paperwork. If “I nepli letan pou per e fer Seselwa dormi boner” Publish the arrangements, be bold you have already won.  The oppositions managed to pull 51.57% when all votes from each candidate excluding PDM's  is added. Let us not wait for those votes to go to spoil or be bought just because of trust issues.Let's act now! 

We all know Mancham joined snp and gave Ramkalawan his hat in an open gesture at Belombre later to find Ramkalawan removing his man from parliament while smiling in his face.Lets not repeat history. Yes we need change but this time people are prudent and aware.

Hell i do not believe in snp when it holds many individuals that i crossed paths with that are as good as those they are trying to remove from power but the people needs change we need change and i would encourage others to invest a vote in change but we need transparency for a such investment otherwise we are lost.

See this little mathematics courtecy of seychelles today:-

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Naboth, John Desaubin Once Said "I WOULD RATHER DIE ON MY KNEES THAN TO LIVE ON MY KNEES" He Was Right As He Made History For Human Rights In Seychelles A Reality

Editors Note: After so many ordeals, even in his grave Naboth Desaubin made sure that his rights were not trampled on and abused or taken advantage of by the very people from the system (pl government) and those so called oppositions of seychelles.

Dora Zatte The Seychelles Human Rights Failure

Desaubin despite many difficulty to obtaining his rights stood firm with his idea that justice shall be served. Many told him going after the Seychelles Port Authority meant going after the state and the state would always win whether you are in the right. Some of those very same persons and so called friends of his whom were pro government and as well as oppositions in the Seychelles left him standing on his own at the corners of Le Mariniere with his panel, protesting for his right while most sat at the electoral reform table for free tea, free meal and a sum for participation even if nothing was working. No coverage from those very same media oppositions that is  still crying out freedom of the press and is asking for access to freedom of information.

John as he is known to all or simply "Tata" by nick name. Even had to report his former Lawyer Anthony Derjaques whom is also chairman of the Seychelles Bar Association  and member of the opposition of the seychelles national party, when that very lawyer rudely withdrew himself from his case later stating that Desaubin had made a threat on his life by means of illegal nature which was untrue and an arrogant ploy because his client asked why was the case being mentioned everytime rather than hearing. Desaubin plaint to the courts for incomplete work by the lawyer on the legal code of ethics and equally received a fair response as to whereby the Chief Justice then had the lawyer Derjaques fork over Part of money paid by Desaubin which he had taken for the case as legal fees and not worked for.

It did not end there for the long struggle to his rights. Naboth Desaubin sought Human Rights Organisations overseas and even wrote to the unhcr courts where he was told to exhaust all means available in his country before they can entertain his case. He was set and ready for whatever with his strong partner always faithful to their cause.


Eventually the supreme court gave its verdict and "TATA" was there to enjoy the fruits of his labour. Sadly after; the Seychelles Port Authority again thru the same lawyer Basil Hoareau filed an appeal against the judgement critisizing the supreme courts judges judgement. This was a move seen by many seychellois whom spoke to Desaubin and his partner as the part where he will shortly live his victory and the credibility of the appeal courts put to test. Again Desaubin never once gave up on his commitment to see his rights upheld and the violation against him his business remedied.

Unfortunately on 22nd December 2014 "Naboth Desaubin Passed away at the seychelles Hospital". Today his victory is being used as a tool by some politicians as if they played a role to the verdict. His partner recognises that the struggle was hers and Naboth's alone. All the hypocrits whose trying to profit from his achievements will fail as this has set a precedence for seychellois to courage up and stand on their own feet for their rights.


However his legacy will remain as he stood all by himself in the den of the lions and he prevailed.

Naboth Desaubin Left a Letter to Publish addressing the president of Seychelles in relation to the Seychelles port authority under orders of Andre Ciseau an army lieutenant colonel, even after death he continues to test the limits of seychelles human rights under the word of his excellency himself President James ALix Michel "Ziz Mon Par Mon Aksyon". Holding the president accountable to act against these agent in his authorities and government that holds no respect for humanity.

Quote by court of Appeal judges and a major step for human rights in Seychelles: (22)    Parliament by creating authorities did not intend them to be a law unto themselves with pockets of unbridled power outside the rule of law. They were created to operate within the bounds of their statutory powers and functions for the purposes of regulating certain specific activities and not for the purposes of ruling over people under the guise of their statutory power: see Doris Raihl v Ministry of National Development SCA 6 of 2009. .


[Coram:     S. Domah (J.A) , A. Fernando (J.A) , J. Msoffe (J.A) ]

Civil Appeal SCA 28/2014
(Appeal from Supreme Court Decision 357/2010)

The Seychelles Port Authority



John Desaubin


Heard:             10 April 2015
Counsel:          Mr. B. Hoareau for Appellant 

                        Mr. F. Bonte for Respondent 

Delivered:       17 April 2015


S. Domah (J.A)

(1)      John Desaubin had been running a bar and a restaurant, Le Marinier,  for the past 21 years on the premises of the Seychelles Ports Authority (“SPA”), Inter Island Quay. On the expiry of the lease in 2006, John Desaubin requested for a renewal and was refused. He, therefore, soon after lodged a case in Court against his likely eviction by the SPA coupled with a Motion for Injunction. At one stage, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant gave an undertaking that pending the disposal of the case, the respondent will not be evicted. The case dragged on for one reason or the other. The blame is being cast on him for the delay when the evidence and the record shows that it was not he who was in control. If the SPA wanted to have the case heard earlier, it was open for it  to make the motion for same or write to the Registrar or the Chief Justice for that matter. The SPA did none of this.

(2)      Be that as it may, the matter was fixed for 19 January 2011. On 10 December 2010, a month before the case was to be heard and just under two weeks before Christmas, SPA landed manu military out of the blue, defying Court, defying law, defying counsel, defying the respondent, broke open the door and took all his movables out in the open. There is evidence that following the eviction and the humiliating treatment, the respondent’s health deteriorated markedly. He had to proceed abroad a couple of times for such medical treatment as he could not obtain in Seychelles spending his savings. He brought a case for illegal eviction against the SPA and claimed SRs2,157,500. He survived the hearing of his case at the trial below. But he has not survived the hearing of this appeal.

(3)      The learned Judge in a particularly well written judgment dealt with all the relevant issues in law and facts. He also referred to the relevant judicial authorities, some of which had not been submitted to him by counsel.  He found the case proved against the appellant and awarded him damages in the sum of SRs869,500.00. The SPA has still prosecuted this appeal, pursuing the deceased respondent as it were even beyond his grave.

(4)      The appellant had pleaded that the respondent had failed to take steps to have the case disposed of with due dispatch so that by January 2011, even the motion let alone the main case was still awaiting disposal on account of the delaying tactics employed by the respondent. It is common knowledge that there are a number of factors beyond the control of litigants which delay cases in court. And the evidence hardly points to the Respondent’s laches. On the contrary. The least said about it the best. 

(5)      The SPA’s excuse for its reprehensible conduct is that the respondent had been carrying out his trade illegally inasmuch as the Licensing Authority on 12 August 2010 had notified the appellant as the owner that the premises were being used to conduct business without a valid licence. It is the case of the appellant, therefore, that being a statutory corporation, wholly owned by the Government, it fell under a duty and an obligation to evict the respondent from the premises and used only such force as was reasonable in the circumstances. It has produced no authority to show that it could, as a agency of government, so conceive of a law on its own, decide illegality on its own, deliver justice to itself on its own and then execute the orders on its own. Our comment on this misconceived zeal by SPA is that this is the very type of despotism which our democratic system of government cannot brook. An investigation should have been carried out by government to decide who took, and who were those who became privy to, such a rash and reckless decision for the purposes of an appropriate action. 

(6)      Be that as it may, the appellant has appealed against that decision of the learned Judge. It has advanced 6 grounds of appeal, as follows:
1.    The Learned trial Judge erred in law on the evidence in holding that the Respondent had adduced evidence to prove damages awarded by the trial judge.
2.    The Learned Trial Judge  erred in law and on the evidence in failing to attach sufficient weight to the failure of the Respondent to produce and keep commercial books, account and business documents and to draw the necessary inferences from such failure.
3.    The Learned Trial Judge  erred in law and on the evidence in relying on the testimony of the Respondent, in respect of the damages, as the respondent was not a credible witness.
4.    The Learned Trial Judge  erred in law and on the evidence in holding that there was an unwritten agreement or undertaking that the Respondent would continue to operate his business without a licence until the issue of the lease and licence were [sic] resolved.
5.    The Learned Trial Judge  erred in law and on the evidence in failing to hold that in view that the Respondent did not have a licence to operate a bar and restaurant business in the premises, the Respondent cannot legally claim damages for loss and profit from an illegal business.
6.    The Learned Trial Judge  erred in law and on the evidence in awarding damages to the Respondent for an activity which was against policy [sic].

(7)      The respondent is resisting the appeal and supporting the decision of the learned Judge.

(8)      All the grounds evoked have to do with the appreciation of evidence. The law needs no citation that an appellate court will not interfere with the appreciation of the evidence of a trial court unless it is shown that the conclusion reached was wrong in the application of the relevant law, based on irrelevant facts, not supported by sufficiency of evidence or simply unwarranted. Grounds 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have to do with damages. Ground 4 makes no mention of damages and we assume in favour of the appellant that it has to do with liability. We propose to deal with the issue of liability before dealing with the issue of damages.


(9)      Ground 4 questions the learned judge’s finding that there was an unwritten agreement or undertaking that the Respondent would continue to operate his business without a licence until the issue of the lease and licence were [sic] resolved.


(10)    We would grant the appellant the argument that the respondent could not assume that he could operate without a licence and no one has the authority to represent to another that you may operate without a licence. An agreement therefore that someone operates without a licence, whether written or unwritten, is against public order and invalid.

(11)    However, the action of the plaintiff was not based on that. It was based on the fact that the SPA itself defied the law and the Courts to enter the premises manu military, remove his movables and, thereby, accelerate his demise.


(12)     Learned counsel can only challenge that finding if he can show that there was no evidence at all on which such a finding was based. As a court of appeal, we are ill-placed to come to our own conclusion in a matter where the trial court retains sovereign competence of appreciation: see Government of Seychelles v Shell Company of the Islands SCA 11 of 1988.

(13)    On the question of whether the respondent was operating without without a licence, there are at least 8 pages of transcript where the issue has been canvassed in examination in chief, cross examination and re-examination. It would be pedantic to recite them in this frivolous appeal.

(14)    In the light of the above, we see no merit in Ground 4. We dismiss it.  We now come to the other grounds of appeal.


(15)    Ground 1 and 3 are general grounds. As such, they amount to no grounds at all. They are dismissed. Any comment of evidence will be taken along with other proper grounds. Credibility is a matter for the trial court. What reads one thing in a transcript may present itself very differently in real life. True it is that the respondent shows himself irascible and impatient but his answers are typical post-traumatic reactions. No one either in the Ports Authority of the Licensing Authority for that matter would have liked to be treated in such a fashion in a democratic society, albeit the fact that he is not an angel.

Grounds 3

(16)    Grounds 3 challenges the basis on which the learned Judge awarded the damages in that the Respondent had not adduced evidence for the purpose; that the necessary inference was not drawn from the failure of the Respondent to produce and keep commercial books, account and business documents; that the Respondent was not a credible witness. Our short answer to it is that this was not a claim by the tax officers on the returns of his day to day business. It was a claim in tort and all he had to show was to give a reasonable account and amount of the prejudice which had been caused to him, moral and material. The case was postponed so that he could come with some papers. He came with some papers on which the Court was entitled to come to the conclusion it did with respect to his earnings per month, his profits, what he paid to the workers, the prejudice he suffered in terms of loss of good-will, equipment, furniture, kitchenwares and other materials. A court is entitled to make  a reasonable assessment of damages on whatever little evidence which is at his disposal in a claim: see Monica Kilindo v. Sidney Morel SCA 12 of 2000.

Grounds 5 and 6

(17)    Under ground 5, the decision of the learned trial Judge  is impugned for the reason that  in law and on the evidence he should have held – which he did not - that since the Respondent did not have a licence to operate a bar and restaurant business in the premises, he could not legally claim, and if he did, the learned Judge should not have allowed, damages for loss and profit from an illegal business.

(18)    Ground 6 repeats the principle with a different wording in that the learned Trial Judge  erred in law and on the evidence in awarding damages to the Respondent for an activity which was against policy [sic].

(19)    Learned counsel argued for the application of the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio. He cited Halsbury Laws of England, Vol. 12(1) 4th Ed. Reissue. However, the same citation goes on to state that “many regulatory offences are not reprehensible.” In Beresford v Royal Insurance Co. Ltd [1937] 2 KB 197at 200, Lord Wright is cited to have observed that there were statutory offences and crimes of inadvertence where the application of the principle of ex turpi causa non oritur actio lacked moral justification (see also Marles v Philip Trant & Sons Ltd (no. 2), (Mackinnon) [1954] 1 QB 29.)

(20)    Learned counsel would have had a point and the above maxim would have applied if the respondent was operating without a licence stricto sensu in that he had never been licensed or cared to obtain one. But this was not the case. This was a case where the respondent had been operating under a valid licence for the past 21 years but, on a dispute arising between them as to the nature of the lease which ended up in court. The Licensing Authority of prosecuting the respondent for trading without a licence did none of those things. Instead, it chose to consort with the Ports Authority to administer a justice privée while at the same time aiding and abetting it to commit a contempt of court. The Licensing Authority has no business to write to a lessor to inform him that any trader is carrying on his activities without a licence. Its business is to prosecute and not to act as informant. The plea that they are government agencies so they act under a duty and obligation to evict does not permit them to use muscular power but institutional power. They had no power to evict by taking the law, the procedure and the determination and the execution into their own hands. This is exactly the sort of State activity that has been sought to be prevented when the Constitution speaks of democracy and the rule of law. The objective  was to replace mini-despots exercising justice privée by democratic people at the head of agencies under the rule of law account taken of the Separation of Powers.


(21)    Such an argument cannot ignore a number of facts particular to the case: first, that there was a dispute both as regards the lease and the licence; second, that this dispute was before the court and was sub judice; third, that the learned judge had found as a fact that an agreement had been reached that the respondent would continue trading pending the decision of the court. As to whether the action lodged by the respondent was a reasonable action, the facts show that he was a protected tenant because the furniture belonged to the respondent. What the Ports Authority attempted to do is by high handed means to oust him of his legal rights. 

(22)    Parliament by creating authorities did not intend them to be a law unto themselves with pockets of unbridled power outside the rule of law. They were created to operate within the bounds of their statutory powers and functions for the purposes of regulating certain specific activities and not for the purposes of ruling over people under the guise of their statutory power: see Doris Raihl v Ministry of National Development SCA 6 of 2009. .


(23)    On the issue of damages, it was incumbent upon the appellants to show that the damages were excessive: see Danny Mousbe v Jimmy Elizabeth SCA 14 of 1993.  On the contrary, taking account of the fact that the learned Judge should have awarded exemplary damages for the high-handed manner in which a public authority attempted to flout government authorities to do justice privée to itself. It is fortunate that the respondent has not cross appealed for an increase in the sum awarded.


(24)    We order interests in this case to be paid from the day of the lodging of the plaint at the legal rate on account of the conduct of the appellant, the unsoundness of the pleas, the unreasonableness in prosecuting this appeal.

(25)    We are grateful to learned counsel for the appellant for having shown his good faith in seeking last minute instructions from his client before standing in for them in this appeal to the best of his ability.


(26)    All the grounds having been seen to have no merits, we dismiss the appeal with costs. The appeal was frivolous and a culpable waste of tax payer’s money.  We only wish that no government and no government agency resorts to such reprehensible conduct in the future and no counsel lends itself to condone such actions. We order that the damages bears interest at the legal rate from the date of the lodging of the plaint.


S. Domah (J.A)
I concur:.                                ………………….                                           A. Fernando (J.A)
I concur:.                                ………………….                                           J. Msoffe (J.A)

Signed, dated and delivered at Palais de Justice, Ile du Port on 17 April 2015