Rosebelle (Pty) Ltd v Remoto ((SCA 13/2025) [2025] (Arising in MA 164/2024) (15 December 2025)) [2025] SCCA 37 (15 December 2025)

contents of #navigation-content will be placed in [data-offcanvas-body] for tablet/mobile screensize and #navigation-column for desktop screensize. Skip to document content Summary Table of contents Search [] GUNESH-BALAGHEE JA (Sharpe-Phiri JA, Sichinga JA, concurring) 1. The appellant is appealing against a judgment of the Supreme Court dismissing its application whereby it was seeking an order for leave to file its Notice of Appeal out of time before the Supreme Court and for its appeal to be heard by the said Court outside delay. 2. On 21 May 2024, the Employment Tribunal delivered a judgment against the appellant declaring that the termination of the respondent's employment by the appellant was unlawful and that the sum of SCR 221,755.78 should be paid to her as employment benefits. 3. On 28 June 2024, the appellant filed an application for leave to appeal out of time against the Tribunal's judgment. 4. In its affidavit in support ofthe application, the appellant (then applicant) averred that5. (a) on the said day, the appellant had not yet received a copy of the Tribunal's judgment and that its Counsel had only received a copy of the computation of the employment benefits made by the Tribunal on the very day by email; (b) it could not finalise its appeal within the prescribed time limit (which would have been on or before 10 June 2024) because neither the appellant nor its Counsel had been served with a copy of the judgment; (c) its Counsel was on sick leave immediately after the date of the judgment for a period of two weeks and this greatly affected its director's ability to meet with him to discuss and prepare the appeal before 10 June 2024; (d) there are good causes to allow the filing of the appeal out of time; (e) Counsel's illness is good cause for leave to be granted; (f) there is no inordinate delay in making the application and it will be in the interest of justice for the Court to exercise its discretion to grant leave to the appellant to file notice of appeal out of time. Although the Supreme Court found that the procedure followed for seeking leave to appeal out of time was irregular, in that at least the Notice of Appeal should have been filed, it proceeded to consider whether the appellant had sufficient grounds for the Court to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit and, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the application. 6. The appellant is appealing against the judgment of the Supreme Court on the following grounds: ".1. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts in dismissing the appelant's application for an extension of time to file its notice of appeal and more specifically in coming to the wrong conclusion that the justifications provided by the appellant could not in law provide for good cause before the Court. 2. The learned trial Judge erred in law and on the facts for having drawn the wrong inferences as to the appellant's justification for the order sought before it and hence wrongly applied the law relating to the test required to grant an order for an extension of time pertaining to the appellant's application." 7. Rule 24 of the Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules, 2023 ("the Rules"), so far as material, provides: "24.(1) Unless the President otherwise directs - (a) The appellant shall lodge with the Registrar five copies of the appellant's main heads of argument within one month from the date of service of the record. A copy of such heads of arguments shall be served on each of the respondents at the same time. (i) Where at the date fixed for hearing of the appeal the appellant has not lodged heads of argument in terms ofthis Rule, the appeal shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall accordingly be struck out unless the Court otherwise directs on good cause shown. (ii) Nothing in this Rule shall be deemed to limit the discretion of the Court to hear an appeal or application notwithstanding that heads of argument have not been filed." [emphasis added] 8. Pursuant to Rule 24(1)(a), the heads of argument of the appellant must be lodged in the Registry within one month from the date of service of the record. It is undisputed that the record was served on the appellant on 25 September 2025 and the appellant's heads of argument were only lodged on 7 November 2025. 9. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that, in computing the delay of one month under Rule 24(1)(a), one must only take into account court days, i.e., weekends and public holidays are excluded and that the appellant had therefore filed the heads of argument within the delay of one month. 10. I do not agree. 11. Rule 2(3) of the Rules provides as follows: "(3) In the Computation of time - "days" means Court days. "week" means seven days inclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays. "month" means a calendar month inclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays;" 12. Rule 24(1)(a) uses the word "month" and makes no reference to days or Court days. In the circumstances, the appellant was clearly outside delay for filing its heads of argument and, pursuant to Rule 24(1)(i), the appeal is deemed to be abandoned. 13. I must point out that the appellant could have sought an extension of time to file the heads of argument outside time pursuant to Rule 26 which is set out below, but he failed to do so: "26. The times fixed within these Rules may, on good cause shown by notice of motion supported by affidavit, be extended by the President or the Court." 14. The appellant seems to be completely oblivious of the Rules regarding time limits and has not once but twice failed to comply with the delay prescribed in respect of court proceedings. It has also failed to seek an extension of time from this Court. 15. The issue raised in this case is not a novel one. It has already been mooted and decided by this Court in a number of cases, namely Aglae v Attorney General (2011) SLR 44, Commissioner of Police & Anor v Antonio Sullivan & Ors (SCA 26 of 2015) [2018] SCCА 2 (10 May 2018), Laurette & Ors v Savy & Ors (SCA 13 of 2019) [2019] SCCA 36 (21 October 2019), Auguste v Singh Construction (Commercial Case 71 of 2022) [20221 SCCA 69 (16 December 2022), Chang Sing Chung v Kim Koon and Ors (SCA MA 38 of 2023) [2023] SCCA 48 (25 August 2023), Avani Seychelles Barbarons Resort & Spa v Simeon (SCA 04/2023) [2023] (18 December 2023 ((SCA 04/2023) [2023] and Bordino v Government of Seychelles ((SCA 12/2024) [2024]. 16. It has been basically held in the above authorities that the importance of rules of procedure cannot be overemphasised and the rules of court must, prima facie, be obeyed. However, the Court retains a discretion to allow an appeal to proceed although there has been noncompliance with the delay where there are valid or compelling reasons. 17. In the light of the above, it can be said that it is now well settled under the Seychellois law that the time limit for lodging the heads of argument is meant to be strictly adhered to so that, at some stage, the finality of judicial decisions should be certain. 18. Since the appellant has failed to comply with the time limit prescribed under Rule 24(1)(a) and has, in addition, failed to seek an extension of time pursuant to Rule 26, the appeal is deemed abandoned and is accordingly dismissed, with costs. K. Gunesh-Balaghee, JA I concur: N. Sharpe-Phiri, JA I concur: D. Sichinga, JA Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 15 December 2025.