Kumykov & Anor v Attorney General (CS 81 of 2021) [2024] SCSC 142 (8 July 2024)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES In the matter between: AZAMAT KUMYKOV (Represented by Mr. Elizabeth) KSENIA IGOREVNA TRUKHAN (Represented by Mr. Elizabeth) versus ATTORNEY GENERAL (Represented by Ms. Luthina Monthy) Reportable CS 84/2021 pt Plaintiff 2nd Plaintiff Defendant Neutral Citation: Before: Heard: Delivered: Azamat Kumykov vis Attorney General (CS 84/2021) G. Dodin 22 October, 14 December2022, 15 May, July, August 2023 & written submissions 8th July 2024 JUDGMENT Dodin J. [I J The Ist Plaintiff is the partner of the 2nd Plaintiff, and together they were holiday makers, who travelled to Seychelles for a vacation in December 2020. Around the 1st January 2021, the 1st Plaintiff undertook a PCR test as required by the Ministry of Health. The 1st Plaintiff avers that on the 2nd January 2021 Dr Christian Annasse communicated with the Plaintiffs via WhatsApp, informing the lSIPlaintiff that the l " Plaintiff had tested positive for the COVID- 19 virus. The 1st Plaintiff further avers that Dr Christian Annasse instructed the 1st Plaintiff to self-isolate for ten days, inclusive of the day the l " Plaintiff was tested. The I" Plaintiff avers that he self-isolated at JA Enchanted Resort, Round Island, Seychelles, and communicated the same to Dr Christian Annasse. [2J The 1Sl Plaintiff avers that at or around the 9th January 2021, the 1st Plaintiff informed Dr Christian Annasse, via WhatsApp, that the 1st Plaintiff was nearing the completion of his quarantine, and was seeking clearance to travel to Dubai on the 11th January 2021. On the 10lh January 2021, Dr Christian Annasse, via WhatsApp, informed the pi Plaintiff that a Clearance letter would be provided to him. The 1st Plaintiff avers that to date, the Defendant, through its personnel, agents, employees or servant has failed, refused or neglected to provide the l" Plaintiff with copy of the pt Plaintiffs PCT test result taken on Ist January 2021, and a Clearance Letter to him. [3] The Ist Plaintiff avers that as a result of the Defendant's actions and omissions the Ist Plaintiff was forced to cancel his flight from Seychelles to Dubai on the 1Jlh January 2021 and undertake a second PCR test, on the 1Jlh January, in order to depart from Seychelles at or around the 15th January 2021. The 1st Plaintiff avers that the acts or omission of the Defendant, is personnel, agents, employees or servants amounts to a 'faute' in law for which the Defendant is liable to make good to the 1st Plaintiff. [4] The 2nd Plaintiff avers that at or around the pt January 2021, she undertook a PCR test as required by the Ministry of Health. On the 2nd January 2021, Dr Christian Annasse informed the 1st Plaintiff, via WhatsApp, that the 2nd Plaintiff has tested negative for the COVID-19 virus; that the 2nd Plaintiff was a high risk contact who needed to quarantine, and that the 2nd Plaintiff had to be tested at the end of her quarantine period. The z= Plaintiff self-isolated at JA Enchanted Resort, Round Island, Seychelles. The 2nd Plaintiff avers that at or around the 7th January 2021, at JA Enchanted Resort, Round Island, Seychelles, the 2nd Plaintiff undertook a second PCR test. [5] The 2nd Plaintiff avers that at or around the 7th January 2021, the pi Plaintiff informed Dr Christian Annasse, via WhatsApp, that the 2nd Plaintiff had taken the second PCR test. The 1st Plaintiff informed Dr Christin Annasse, via WhatsApp, that the 2nd Plaintiff intended to leave Seychelles in the evening of the 8th January 2021; if the 2nd Plaintiffs PCR test result returned negative. The 2nd Plaintiff further avers that via WhatsApp, Dr Christina Annasse requested copies of the Plaintiffs' passports to prepare the Plaintiffs departure. [6] The 2nd Plaintiff avers that around the 8th January 2021, on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff, an employee, agent or servant of JA Enchanted Resort, Round Island, Seychelles contacted the Ministry of Health with regard to the 2nd Plaintiffs test result, and was informed that the 2nd Plaintiff's peR test result was not ready. Around the 8th January 2021, as a result of the Defendant's actions and omissions, the 211d Plaintiff was forced to cancel her flight to France (via Dubai and Geneva) departing from Seychelles on the 8th January 2021. The 211d Plaintiff further avers that she had to rebook her flight to France, to depart from Seychelles in the evening of the 9th January 2021. [7] The 211d Plaintiff further avers on the 9th January 2021, on behalf of the 2nd Plaintiff, an employee, agent or servant of JA Enchanted Resort, Round Island, Seychelles contacted the Ministry of Health with regard to the 211d Plaintiff's test result, and was informed that the 211d Plaintiff's peR test result was not available because it has been lost. [8] The 2nd Plaintiff avers that on the 9th January 2021, the 1st Plaintiff informed Dr Christian Annasse, via WhatsApp, that the 2nd Plaintiff's test result had been lost and requested clearance to leave Seychelles. The 2nd Plaintiff avers that Dr Christian Annasse, arranged for a discharge letter to be drafted for collection at Maison Hermitage, Mont Fleuri, Mahe, Seychelles. On the 9th January 2021, the 211d Plaintiff produced the discharge letter to employees, agents or Servants of Emirates airline at Seychelles Airport but was denied boarding. After half an hour of contacting the Ministry of health and negotiating with the employees, agents or servants of Emirates airline, the 2nd Plaintiff was permitted to travel, without her peR test result to Dubai only. [9] The 211d Plaintiff avers that as a result of the Defendant's actions and omissions the 2nd Plaintiff suffered mental and physical exhaustion, humiliation, frustration, and stress. The z= the 2nd Plaintiff further avers that as a result of the Defendant's actions and omissions, Plaintiff was forced to remain in Dubai for three days in order to do a third PCR test, receive her PCR test results and cancel the second leg of her flight from Dubai to France via Geneva. The 2nd Plaintiff avers further that as a result of the delay, the 2nd Plaintiff had to extend her stay in Dubai due to the Covid-19 pandemic causing France to close its borders to travellers. The 2nd Plaintiff avers that the acts or omission of the Defendant, its personnel, agents, employees or servants amounts to a 'faute' in law for which the Defendant is liable to make good to the 2nd Plaintiff. [10] The loss and damages claimed by the l " and 2nd Plaintiffs are particularised as follows: (a) 1st Plaintiff: I. 11. III IV v. VI. Moral damages for the 1SI Plaintiff for Inconvenience, mental anguish and emotional distress Cost ofPCR Tests (01.01.2021 11.01.2021) SCR 100, 000.00 SCR 5,000.00 Expenses incurred for transportation and performance PCR tests and results SCR 6,291.00 Hotel cost for unattendance in Dubai (11.01.2021 -12.01.2021) USD323.99 @ 19.00 SCR 6,155.81 Hotel cost for extended stay in Seychelles SCR 28,134.75 Legal Fees (USD6,000.00@19.00) SCR 114, 000.00 (b) 2nd Plaintiff: I. Moral damages for the 2nd Plaintiff for inconvenience, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional distress Tourist tax charges in Dubai USD 21.78 @ 19.00 Hotel cost for extended stay in Dubai USD 1,816.75 @ 19.00 Cost of PCR tests (01.01.21 and 07.01.2021) Cost of PCR test (Dubai) AED240.00 @ 5.50 II. Ill. iv. v. Total SCR 100, 000.00 SCR413.82 SCR 34,518.25 SCR 5, 000.00 SCR 1,320.00 SCR 400,833.63 [I 1] The Plaintiffs moved the Court for judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs in the total sum of SCR 400, 833.63 with interest and costs. [12] The Defendant admitted most of the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff or maintained that the Defendant had no knowledge of the averments, putting the Plaintiffs to strict proof. However the Defendant denied that the 2nd Plaintiff was informed that her PCR test had been lost and also denied any liability in respect of the particulars of loss and damages allegedly suffered by both Plaintiffs. [13] Both the 1st Plaintiff testified consistently with their respective claims. Doctor Christian Annasse and Doctor, Sanjeev gave very enlightening evidence on the circumstances surrounding the Plaintiffs' stay in Seychelles at the very beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak. [14] Dr. Annasse testified that the Public Health protocol at the time was 10 days isolation for all positive cases with review after 10 days and if the person was asymptomatic he would be given a discharge after day 10. He testified that he informed that the partner of Mr. Azarnath was negative but she was still a high risk contact of a positive case, hence according to the protocol she would have to remain in quarantine. He averred that advice was also sent through 1st Plaintiff that the 2nd Plaintiff did not have to undergo 14 days quarantine, and that there was an early release option that was also offered to her provided that she was asymptomatic and provided her peR test was negative she could be allowed to leave the country and do the quarantine back in her home country. Therefore the 2 n d P Ia i n tiff could have left the country at that particular point in time without any inconvenience but she decided to stay. [15] . Dr. Annasse testified further that they received a request on the 8th January for the 2nd Plaintiff and a letter of release was prepared by Dr. Sanjeev which was issued on the 9thJanuary. The purpose of that letter was to release her from quarantine locally with the sole purpose of being able to travel back to the country of origin and to have further follow-up done in the country of origin. He testified that on 10thJanuary he received a request for the pIPlaintiff's discharge which was meant for the 12thJanuary as he was due for discharge on the 12thJanuary provided he met the conditions for release. He maintained that he responded to the pt Plaintiff but that it might have been delayed because they were quite busy with multiple cases and multiple clusters of cases that they were dealing with and had limited staff but that he believes that he got back to him later that same day. [16] Dr. Annasse further stated that the 1st Plaintiff was upset because of the delay in communication but even if he explained to him what the cause for that delay was, he was still upset and the JSl Plaintiff was threatening in tone so he decided not to have any further communications with him and handed over the case to his superior, Dr. Sanjeev and his team leader Dr. Bibi in the Surveillance Department. He testified that from there on he did not have any further communications with the 1st Plaintiff on WhatsApp but was kept in copy on several e-rnails that they received from him and communicated with him from the Public Health Department. [17] Cross-examination did not yield much except the question of whether there has been tampering with the WhatsApp messages as some did not have dates even if they contained the same messages. Dr. Annasse also stated that it was the Public Health Laboratory t hat was issuing results and that the rapid response team was basically receiving the lists of positive cases but the actual official result did not come to them. He further averred that the JSl Plaintiffs request to travel could not have been cleared because he had not completed the 10 days isolation. [18] Dr. Annasse also averred that he was aware that the Public Health Authority has had any issues with the Immigration Department with regards to the letters that they have prepared hence he was not sure why the 2nd Plaintiff was not allowed to travel as she met the criteria for discharge and had been given an official discharge. [19] Dr. Sanjeev testified that he prepared the letter for 1st Plaintiff. The letter was dated 11th January 202 J. He stated however that it appeared that the letter was not sent to the l" Plaintiff an d there was no follow-up from the JSl Plaintiff regarding the letter but the y only received an e-mail in which they were informed that they were being taken to Court. The reason the letter was not sent according to Dr Sanjeev was most likely an oversight by one of the members of the committee. They had hundreds of letters being drafted every day and they had about 900 new cases in January 2021. [20] if the test was on the l" January According to Dr. Sanjeev, for 10 days inclusive I I th but that to the pi Plaintiff and if he had said 1jth midnight, and the isolation was the it was Dr. Annasse who would have been the person communicating that would have been when he the l " then it should end on the 101h at midnight not would have been released. [21] Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant made lengthy submissions which are summarised hereunder. [22] Learned counsel for the Defendant submitted that the crucial question to be asked in the present case is whether there has been any fault committed by the defendant in this case. In the case ofRabatv Government of Seychelles (SCA 2012001) [20027 SCCA 21 (19 April 2002), it is clearly stated that tort liability does not follow from damages unlessthe act amounts to a fault. Furthermore, a delict claim is directed at an act or_omission or an error of conduct of the defendant which forms the basis of the claim. The claim arises at the date that the delict causes the damage or injury to the petitioner as rightly noted in the case of Atkinson v Government of Seychelles SLA 2312006, 285. A fault is an error of conduct which results from a breach of a duty of care. Pierre v Attorney-General (2008) SLR 251. In order to establish liability under article 1382 of the Civil Code there must be fault, damage, and a causal link, as stated in Joubert v Suleman (2010) SIR 248. In addition a claim arises under article 1382(1) of the Civil Code when the act and the injury co-exist, and there is a causal link between the act and the injury, not when the damage has been quantified. On top of this causal link will be establ ished if an act constitutes the primary cause of the damage. It does not need to be the sole and immediate cause, but must be more than simply a cause amongst a number of contributory causes. Joubert v Suleman (2010) SIR 248. Therefore, the prejudice or the loss and damages suffered by the plaintiff must be a direct result of the defendant's fault. For the Government to be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, it must be shown that the employees in exercising their official functions were acting in bad faith, abused their power, or were grossly negligent. This was clearly noted in the case of Emmanuel v Joubert SCA 4911996, LC 117 and Attorney-General v Labonte SCA 2412007, LC 26, as rightly upheld in the case of Julienne v Government ofSeychelles(20 12)SLR 23. [23] Learned counsel further submitted that the question to be asked at this point is whether the Doctor acted negligently in dealing with the case at hand. In order to determine the standard of care that a ski lied professional such as a Doctor must have, the reasonable person test should cannot be used, but rather the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled person exercising and professing to have that special skill, as pointed out in the cases 0f Gabriel v Government of Seychelles (2006) SLR 169 and Labonte v Government or Seychelles (2007) SLR 79. As brought Minor sse Civ 121200, 21 June 2002 the Court will consider what ought been done in the circumstances or what a prudent medical officer would have done in forward by the case of Re A to have the circumstances. In this case at hand consideration must also be given to the Covid- 19 Pandemic which was at its core at the time. The Legal Burden of Proof is on the Plaintiff to establish the Defendant's negligence as stated in the case of Aithal v Seychelles Breweries (2006) SLR 125 and further emphasised in the case of Vel v Ben;ee (2012) SLR 194 which stated that the evidential burden is on the Plaintiff to establish that the Doctor failed or omitted or neglected to perform as a skilled person in the medical profession. [24] Learned counsel submitted that in analysing the contentions of the 1st Plaintiff alongside the evidence of the Defence, firstly the l" Plaintiff claimed SCR 100,000 for moral damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and emotional distress. Upon being asked by his counsel about this particular claim the 1st Plaintiff only confirmed that he made the claim but did not in any way justify how and why he has reached such a claim. Yet again it is to be noted that the I" Plaintiff was travelling in the middle ofa chaotic pandemic and logically there would have been certain inconvenience in so doing especially if one is tested positive for Covid-19. He himself agreed that he understood the risks that travelling during a pandemic paused. So he was aware of the risks of travelling during an unprecedented pandemic, which risks including contracting the virus, testing positive and having to self-isolate if tested positive. Learned counsel submitted that obviously he could not enjoy his vacation as he had to self-isolate as per protocol in force at the time. [25] Learned counsel submitted that in addition the contention that Dr. Annasse and the Ministry of Health did not act professionally is unfounded in view that the moment the positive result came in Dr. Annasse contacted the pt Plaintiff and informed him of his status and provided him with guidelines and procedures to follow and when the l" Plaintiff was asked in cross-examination if at any point thereafter in his communications with Dr. Annasse did he give him any refreshers on guidelines anyway forward for his stay in Seychelles or for his exit from Seychelles, the or I" Plaintiff confirmed that they did discuss some of those guidelines but they related to the dates of ending of quarantine and the procedures that one has to go through in order to leave Seychelles. This is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Annasse who testified that further to the initial communication to the 1st Plaintiff he communicated with him a couple of times. [26] Learned counsel argued that it is clear that there was indeed communications between the parties and that Dr. Annasse and his team acted professionally in doing their job. However the issue arose when the l" Plaintiff sent a WhatsApp message to Dr. Annasse on the 10th January about his discharge which according to the testimony of Dr. Annasse was 2 days before he was due to be discharged. Dr. Annasse noted that he responded to the Ist Plaintiff but that it might have been delayed because they were quite busy but he did get back to him. He further emphasized that at that particular time between December-January they were quite busy and had multiple cases, multiple clusters of cases that they were dealing with and had limited staff as well so they were very busy and that if he had delayed in communicating to the 1st Plaintiff it was because of that reason. Besides he also testified that they have had a conversation in relation to the discharge letter of the 1st Plaintiff before whereby he had previously already shared with him details on how that would be done earlier on, which as earlier noted the l" Plaintiff himself confirmed. According to Dr. Annasse the l" Plaintiff was more upset because of the delay in communication but that he explained to him what the cause for that delay was but he was still upset and unfortunately his tone was a bit more menacing so he decided not to have any further communications with him and handed over the case to his superior, Dr Sanjeev as well as the team leader who was Dr Bibi in the Surveillance Department. [27] Learned counsel submitted further that the above is corroborated by the evidence of Dr. Sanjeev who testified that Dr. n sent the file of JSt Plaintiff around the 10th January to prepare the letter for release as he was informed that the client was being aggressive or rude as well, so his role at that stage was to issue the release letter. Unfortunately, despite having drafted the letter he never sent the clearance letter but explained that the letter must have not been sent as it must have been an oversight by one of the members of the committee, that he is on the committee as well, they had of course hundreds of letters being drafted everyday just to state that he had to clarify that they had 900 new cases January 2021 which is over every week and all of the procedures have been followed and so on, and there was 100 of letters being issued every week and it is possible that there was an oversight. Especially since December was when they had their first community transmission starting and there was a sudden increase in the number of cases, the work load and so forth and January and February was the hardest part of the response. He also added that there was no follow up on the part of the patient regarding the letter. Nonetheless, the patient did a PCR test and was able to leave the jurisdiction. That being said it is clear that in the given situation the Ministry of Health did its very best to ensure things went smoothly for the patients despite a few inconvenience along the way which is to be expected in such a difficult situation, 111 other words such inconvenience were reasonably foreseeable in the given situation. [28] Learned counsel submitted that in respect of the second claim of the 1st Plaintiff is SCR 5000 for PCR Tests done namely, on 1st January 2021 and 11th January 2021 while the third claim of the 15t Plaintiff is SCR 6291 for expenses incurred for transportation and performance of PCR Tests and results. It is to be noted that again this claim is unsupported as the PCR Test performed on the 01st January 2021 was done by the Ministry of Health gratuitously as per the testimony of Dr. Sanjeev and Dr. Annasse. Besides the l" Plaintiff did not produce any document to prove that he paid the PCR test as per his claim. With regards to the peR test dated 1Jlh January 2021 the l" Plainti ff did provide a copy of the receipt for same. However, the Travel authorisation document or travisory document filled by the 1st Plaintiff Mr. Azamat 1st Plaintiff which was marked as Exhibit 03, before authorization was given to a visitor they had to comply by inserting certain information and test results such as a negative Covid - 19 test result and if they have insurance coverage and so on. The last declaration on the 3rd page of the Travel authorisation document - Exhibit is about an insurance declaration and it states that 'I have health insurance covering Covid-19 valid in the Seychelles for the entirety of my trip' and the response stated is 'yes'. Therefore, the cost of the PCR Test done on the I ph January 2021 as well as the cost for expenses incurred for transportation to perform PCR Test and to collect results should be covered under same hence the claim should be done with the insurance company instead of with the Ministry of Health. [29] Learned counsel submitted that on the fourth claim of the I" Plaintiff is SCR 6155.81 for Hotel cost for unattendance in Dubai (11.01.21- 12.01.21). The most important question to be asked at this junction is when the 151 Plaintiff was due to complete his period of isolation. The sample for testing was collected from the Plaintiff on the 1st January and the results were received on 2nd January. Upon seeking clarification the Learned Trial Judge recapped that Dr. Annasse has testified that according to his calculation the period of isolation of the l" Plaintiff was to end on the I lth at midnight going on the 12th The Judge then asked Dr. Sanjeev whether as per the testimony of Dr. Sanjeev that if the test was on the 1st January and the isolation was for 10 days inclusive the first then it should end on the loth at midnight not the 11thto that Dr. Sanjeev confirmed that the date he was supposed to end isolation is clearly documented and it is I IthJanuary though he cannot confirm the time, but that Dr. Annasse would have been the person communicating to the l" Plaintiff and if he had said 11thmidnight that would have been when he would have been released. In analyzing the evidence of the two Doctors in that regards it is clear that the isolation period is indeed 10 days however the issue to be decided is whether the 10 days include the test day or whether it is 10 days after. When asked for further clarifications Dr Sanjeev noted that according to the protocol the isolation period was for 10 full days from the test but did not precisely state whether 111 their calculation they included the day the test was conducted or not. [30] On the fifth claim of the l " Plaintiff for SCR 28,134.75 being hotel cost for extended stay in Seychelles (1 1.01.2021- 14.01.2021) learned counsel submitted that this runs along the same argument as the previous claim. Given that originally the 1st Plaintiff intended to travel out of the jurisdiction on the 11th January, then the question to be asked is whether the delay has been caused by the Ministry of Health. Based on the preceding paragraph it is clear that as per the evidence of Dr. Anasse as adopted by Dr. Sanjeev, that the isolation period of the l" Plaintiff ends on the I Ithat midnight, going to the 12th thus the IstPlaintiff could not travel out on the II th itself so the additional cost incurred cannot be attributed to the Ministry of Health. Besides the PCR test result undertaken by the l" Plaintiff was received on the 11th itself as per the Molecular Diagnostics Report (peR test result) produced by the 1st Plaintiff, so the additional expenses were clearly not attributable to the Ministry of Health. Besides as per Exhibit D3 the 1st Plaintiff has declared that he had health msurance covering Covid-19 valid In the Seychelles for the entirety of his trip, which was a condition for him to be authorized to travel to Seychelles during the pandemic period, the additional expenses incurred by the Ist Plaintiff for his extended stay due to covid- 19 related inconvenience should have been clarified with the insurance company instead of with the Ministry of Health. [31] On the claim of the l " Plaintiff for SCR 114,000 for Legal fees, learned counsel submitted that it is the contention of the Defence that taking consideration of all the above arguments of the Defence and the fact that the Ministry is denying all the claimed loss and damages as claimed by the l" Plaintiff it follows that the Ministry of Health cannot accept the claim of cost for legal fees. Particularly so as this matter does not have any merits and in addition as there has been no proof adduced to the effect that they have indeed paid the claimed sum. [32] In respect of the claims by the 2nd Plaintiff, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the first claim of SCR 100,000 for moral damages for inconvenience, mental anguish and emotional distress, mainly as her mother was sick and was expecting her on a certain date but that due to the negligence of the health professionals she had to postpone her trip, it is noted that the 2nd Plaintiff was tested negative for covid- 19 but that it was her partner who tested positive but as she was still a high risk contact of a positive case, according to the protocol she would have to remain in quarantine. She had to undergo 14 days quarantine and that there was an early release option that was also offered to her provided that she was asymptomatic and provided her PCR test was negative she could be allowed to leave the country and do the quarantine back in her home country. This was communicated to her. Therefore she could have left the country at that particular point in time without any inconvenience but she decided to stay. The fact that Dr. Annasse did communicate the guidelines of the quarantine of the 2nd Plaintiff is uncontested and in fact acknowledged by the l" Plaintiff. So if she was as distressed as she claimed as she alleged that her mother was very sick and was expecting her then she could have travelled then without any inconvenience. Learned counsel submitted that the Defendant received a request on the 8th January for 2nd Plaintiff to be able to leave before the end of her quarantine hence showing that indeed the Plaintiffs were aware that the 2nd Plaintiff could travel out of the jurisdiction prior to the completion of her quarantine period. [33] On the second claim of the 2nd Plaintiff of SCR 413.82 being Tourism Tax charges in Dubai, no explanation was given to that claim leaving this claim unsubstantiated and cannot be entertained. [34] On the third claim of the 2nd Plaintiff for SCR 34,518.25 for hotel cost for extended stay in Dubai and the fifth claim for SCR 1320 for the cost of PCR test in Dubai, learned counsel submitted that had the 2nd Plaintiff taken the option to leave the jurisdiction earlier on the advice of Dr Annasse, the issue of having to stay over in Dubai to do another PCR test would not have arisen. Hence the Defendant cannot be held liable for the 2nd Plaintiffs extended stay in Dubai as she needed to take new PCR test nor can the Ministry be held liable to pay for the cost of the PCR test in Dubai as claimed. [35] In respect of the fourth claim of the 2nd Plaintiff for SCR 5000 for cost of PCR Test (01.01.2 I and 07.0l.21), learned counsel submitted that it is to be noted just like in the case of the 1 s t Plaintiff, this claim is unsupported as the PCR test performed on the 0 Ist January 2021 was done by the Ministry of Health gratuitously as per the testimony of Dr Sanjeev and Dr Anasse. Besides the 2nd Plaintiff did not produce any document to prove that she paid for the PCR test as per her claim. With regards to the PCR test dated 071h January 2021, the 2nd Plaintiff did not provide any copy of the receipt for same thus cannot be proved that she paid for same. However, it is to be noted that as per the Travel authorisation document or travisory document tilled by the Plaintiffbefore authorization was given to visit" Seychelles one of the conditions for granting approval for visit was that a visitor had to have health insurance covering Covid-19 valid in the Seychelles for the entirety of the trip'. Therefore, the cost of the PCR Test done on the 07th January 2021 if it could be proved would have been covered under same hence the claim should be done with the insurance company instead of with the Ministry of Health. [36] Learned counsel submitted in conclusion that whilst it is true that the l" Plaintiff did not receive his letter of discharge, he did receive his negative test result and travelled smoothly. The Defendant committed no 'fault' in law. Hence there is no reasonable cause of action against the Defendants. Learned counsel moved the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims with cost or in the alternative make the appropriate orders based on the Court's findings. [37] Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submitted the issues that the Court has to consider in this case are as follows: a) Have the Defendants committed a delict (faute) in law? b) Did their faute cause harm to the Plaintiffs? c) Are damages awarded? payable to the Plaintiffs, and what is the quantum of damages to be [38] Learned counsel submitted that law is found in article 1382 of the Civil Code and various cases out of which he referred to 23 cases which shall be appended after summarizing the submission. [39] Learned counsel submitted that it is for the Plaintiffs to prove their case on a balance of probabilities as according to the Plaintiffs' testimonies that the Defendant, its employees, servants or agents, have failed, refused or neglected to provide the l " Plaintiff with a copy of the 1st Plaintiffs PCR test result taken on 1st January 2021, and a Clearance Letter to him which resulted to loss and damages. The 2nd Plaintiff has also proved her case on a balance of probabilities as according to the Plaintiffs' testimonies the Defendant's action or omission amounts to a 'faute' in law for which the Defendant is liable to make good to the 2nd Plaintiff. [40] Learned counsel submitted that the Court 11 0[2021) [20231 SCCA 10 (26 April 2023) cited: in the case Land Marine Ltd v Madeleine (SCA "We find it necessary at thisjuncture to cite the law of delict with respect to fault and causation: "Article 1382 1. Every act whatever of man that causes damage to another obliges him by whosefault it occurs to repair it. 2. Fault is an error of conduct which would not have been committed by a prudent person in the special circumstances in which the damage was caused. It may be the result of a positive act or an omission. 3. Fault may also consist of an act or omission, the dominant purpose of which is to cause harm to another, even if it appears to have been done in the exercise ofa legitimate interest. " [41] Learned counsel submitted that three elements are necessary to establish delictual liability. These are; fault, damage and causality. When these three elements are proven, liability is established and referred to the case of Lappe & Anor v Onezia [20187 [CS 101120141). Learn counsel also referred to the quotations: 'Fault is an error of conduct which would not have been committed by a prudent person in the special circumstances in which the damage was cause. It may be the result of a positive act or omission.' From the case of Public Utilities Corporation v Dubignon (Civil 311 of 2021) [20231 SCSC 215 (24 March 2023), and "Every plaintiff who can prove fault, damage and causation can claim compensation. Furthermore, there is no restriction in delict on the type offaute (fault) which may give rise to liability ": with reference to the case of Civil Construction Company Limited v Leon & Drs (SCA 3612016) [20181 SCCA 33. [42] In respect of fault, learned counsel submitted that Article 1382(1) which deals with responsabilite delictuelle du fait personnel, provides for liability of a person (the tortfeasor) for damage caused to another (the injured party) by an act or omission (i.e. fault) of the tortfeasor. Such act or omission (fault) may be negligent or intentional. Hence Article 1382(2) defines fault as "an error of conduct which would not have been committed by a prudent person in the special circumstances in which the damage was caused". Similarly Article 1383( I) imposes liability for damage caused by negligence or imprudence. On the other hand Article 1382(3) "encompasses a deliberate and intentional cause of harm" (Article 1382(1) which deals with responsabilite delictuelle dufait personnel, provides for liability ofa person (the tortfeasor) for damage caused to another (the injured party) by an act or omission (i.e. fault) of the tortfeasor. Such act or omission (fault) may be negligent or intentional. Hence Article J 382(2) defines fault as "an error of conduct which would not have been committed by a prudent person in the special circumstances in which the damage was caused". Similarly Article 1383( I) imposes liability for damage caused by negligence or imprudence. On the other hand Article 1382(3) "encompasses a deliberate and intentional cause of harm ". Learned counsel referred the Court to the case of Allain St. Ange v Attorney General (CS94 0(2018) [20191 SCSC1016 (18 November 2019)). [43] Learned counsel further referred the Court to the case of Civil Construction Company Limited v Leon & Drs quoting as follows: "<Fault' is an error of conduct which may be the result of a positive act or omission. Although 'fault' is an amorphous term, French courts have given it content. According to Ripert, Note, D. P. [1907] 1. 385, it has been professed that the word 'fault', in the context of interferences with the use and enjoyment of land, describes i.acts intended to harm another, or ii.acts that are harmful to another and arise out of negligence or imprudence imputable to the actor, or iii. acts merely harmful to another if the harm is greater than ought to be tolerated (fault by implication). " [44] Learned counsel quoted further that: "Fault is essentially, in the words of Article 1382.2, 'an error of conduct' which a prudent person (such as the reasonable man on the Clapham omnibus) would not commit. The standard is an objective one. In practice, French courts hold that there isfault when a person's conduct has not been that of "a normally careful, attentive and diligent man, in short, that of a prudent person. " "It also indicates the standard of care required of persons exercising aprofession. A prudent man knows he must possess the knowledge and skill requisite for the exercise of his profession, and that he must conform at least to the normal standards of care expected of persons in that profession. " [45] Learned counsel submitted that to be a professional, one needs to belong to a self-regulating organisation (Attorney-General v Roch Labonte & Drs SCA 241200!). Dr Christian Annasse was acting on behalf of the Ministry of Health. Therefore, he is required to exercise a higher standard of care than the prudent man. The error of conduct can come about as a result of a del iberate act or a negligent act, or by failure to act where there is a duty to do so, or even by an abuse of a right under article 1382.(3). [46] Learned counsel submitted that one is said to be negligent if they are lacking attention, care or concern (Prudence v Mondon SC 912000). The Defendant was fully aware of their obligation to provide patients who undergone COVID-19 virus testing be given the necessary clearance for personal purposes. [47] Learned counsel submitted that failure to act where there is a duty to do so is fault under Article 1382 and depends on what precautions were taken to foresee the occurrence of an event and adopt measures to prevent the consequences No precautions were taken by the Defendant to prevent or to mitigate the loss being suffered by the Plaintiffs. [48] On the aspects of damages, learned counsel submitted Twomey JA in Civil Construction Company Limited v Leon & ars (supra) explains as follows at para [44]'. Learned counsel submitted that the case of Barbe vs Laurence (unreported) CS NO 188 of 2013, instructs us that there are three types of damages arising from delictual harm as a result of one's "faute". They are corporal damage, material damage and moral damage. By corporal damage, Twomey, CJ explained in Barbe (Supra) that this encompasses, bodily injuries sustained by the victim as a result of the "faute", Such damage is intended to compensate the victim as a consequence of the harm or injuries sustained that, makes him or her unable to fully enjoy life as he did prior to sustaining the injuries. That includes, for example, pain and suffering. [49] Learned counsel submitted that Article 1383 of the Civil Code provides that "A person is liable for harm caused not only by his or her actions but also by his or her negligence or imprudence." Article 1 J 49 of the Civil Code provides that "Damages shall also be recoverable for any injury to or loss of rights of personality. These include rights which cannot be measured in money such as pain and suffering, and aesthetic loss and the loss of any of the amenities of life." In the case of John Denis v Roniel Ryland, Commissioner of Police and Attorney-General Civil Side 135 of2012, the Chief Justice Twomey had this to say when it came to the issue of assessing quantum of damages: "The PlaintijJhas claimed moral damages in the sum ofSCR100, 000.00for in the sum of SCR100, 000. 00 for pain and suffering, moral damages humiliation, distress, mental anguish and trauma; moral damages of SCR1 00,000.00 for and SCR1 00,000.00 for loss of liberty for 24 hours. It must be noted on the outset embarrassment inconvenience, and anxiety that damages in delictual cases are compensatory and not punitive. (See Jacques v Property Management Corporation (2011) (SLR 7). The Court has received neither submissions not authorities from Counsel in terms of the quantum of damages. The Plaintiff has not claimed any damages for physical injury which would have been payable for the injury to his eyes, wrists and the rest of his body including a continuing medical condition such as the weakness he claims to still be experiencing in his wrist. This Court can only make an award for damages claimed. Ifind that the Plaintiff did suffer moral damages. Article 1149 (2) states: "Damages shall also be recoverable for any injury or loss of rights or personality. These include rights which cannot be measured in money such as pain and suffering and aesthetic loss and the loss of any amenities of life. " in Cable and Wireless v Michel Moral damages is a term used to cover damage thai is neither material nor corporal. It is something intangible as in the case of suffering. In the case of Michel & Drs v Talma & Anor (2012) SLR 95 the Court of Appeal stated: (SLR 1966 253) "The Court of Appeal referring to Planiol and Ripert make the case that where a right has been violated, compensation can be awarded for moral damages even in the absence of a claim for material damages. These rights can be patrimonial to assess or extra patrimonial as in this case. We agree that it is difficult moral damages but the exercise must still be carried out and the plaintiff is entitled to them. There has however never been a method established in is set out Seychelles to assess moral damages. No method of assessment either in the Constitution or in the Civil Procedure Code." 1 am left in the same dilemma of assessing moral damages without any statutory yardstick. A survey of recent cases (Jaw Toy v Manikon and anor CS 0312014, Fanchette v Dream Yacht Charter (Seychelles) Ltd CS 158/2008, Nourrice v Delorie c.s. 209/2011 and Estico v Fanchette and ors c.s. 36/2012), all cases decided in 2014 and 2015 show a wide divergence in moral damages awarded. It appears that each case is judged on its own merits. In the absence of any guidance or evidence from the Plaintiff, the award this Court makes in the present case can only be arbitrary. In terms of moral damages for pain and suffering I award SR30, 000, for humiliation, distress and mental anguish, SR 20,000,'for inconvenience, embarrassment and anxiety, SR15,000 and for loss of liberty for 24 hours SR30,000. The total sum awarded is SR95, 000 jointly and severally against the first two defendants. Costs are also granted to the Plaintiff." [50] Learned counsel submitted further that in the case of Adonis v Ramphal (2013) SLR 387 Egonde-Ntende C] quoted Dickson J in the Quebecois case of Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta (1978) 2 SCR 22900: loss, is customary as pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation to set only one figure for all non-pecuniary including "It of such factors life. This is sound practice. Although these elements are analytically distinct, they overlap and merge at the edges and in practice. To suffer pain is surely to lose an amenity of a happy life at the time. To lose years of one's expectation of life is to lose all amenities for the lost period and to cause mental pain and suffering in the contemplation of this prospect. These problems, as well as the fact favour a composite award for all non- pecuniary losses. P.264. " the losses have the common trait of irreplaceability, that "I am of the view that pain, suffering, anxiety, distress - all non pecuniary losses should be recovered under one head only - moral damage. I assess this, without guidance and supporting authorities from Counsel at SR8000. " [51] Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Nadin Dodin v Jonathan Geers Civil Side 80/2015, Judge Nunkoo entered judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the sum of SCR760,200.00 for "laceration in the right eye on the eyebrow and upper lid." The Plaintiff also suffered injury in the right knee where he had sustained a fracture of the patella for which he was hospitalized for four days." The Judge observed that "Counsel for the Plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that there is an upward trend in the assessment of damages in view of the rising inflation. The Court does take judicial notice of this fact." Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Farabeau v Casamar Seychelles Ltd (2012) SLR 170, the Plaintiff was awarded SCR350,000.00 for similar injury. [52] Learned counsel referred to several other cases where damages were awarded: In the case of David Michel v GOS Civil Side No. 29/09, Judge Renaud awarded the Plaintiff the total sum of SCR350,000.00 as damages for dislocation of his right shoulder. Out of that sum the Plaintiffwas awarded SCR206,OOO.00for loss of earnings from the time of his accident and future loss of earnings until his retirement age which is from the age of 46 to (his age at the time of the accident) to 63 years old (the age of retirement) which is 17 years in total. The Plaintiff was only earning a monthly salary of SCR2,925.00 at the time." In the case of Manette Labiche v FS Management Trading CS 109/2018, the Chief Justice Dr. Mathilda Twomey, quoting the case of Barbe 11 Laurence (CS 118/2013 [20171 SCSC 408 (17,"May 2017) stated that broadly speaking there are three types of damages in cases of delictual harm: " ... corporal damage, material damage and moral damage. I explained that the corporal damage or injury is the bodily injury caused to the victim and that such damages are meant to compensate for the diminution in the enjoyment of life of the victim and includes the physical pain and suffering of the victim. The material damage can be the destruction of things caused by the delict but also economic damage brought about by the inability of the victim to work or make a living. The moral damage reflects the moral and/or psychological suffering, pain, trauma and anguish suffered by the victim as a result of the delict. " In the case of Barbe (supra) the Plaintiffhad a swollen face, bruises on his head and hands, and had broken his left leg. He could not recall how long he was in hospital but stated that he had to undergo physiotherapy for another seven months after being discharged. He had to stop working. His girlfriend was expecting his baby and because of his leg injury he had to move into his mothers' house. He could not meet his daily expenses. He continues to suffer from discomfort in his leg. He was awarded SR200,OOOfor corporal damage." In the case of Tucker v La Digue Island Lodge (unreported) CS 348 0[2005, the court awarded the sum of SR190,OOOfor the fracture of a femur. In the case of Vital v Attorney General CS 348 of 2005 in a similar injury, Renaud J. awarded SR200,OOObut in that case the claimant had a residual limp. In Farabeau v Casamar Seychelles Ltd (2012) SLR 170 (supra) a sum of SR350,OOOwas awarded also for a broken leg but this included permanent disability and atrophy of the limb In the case of Manette Labiche v FS Management Trading (supra) decided in 2019, the Chief justice, Doctor Mathilda Twomey stated as follows:- "1 take into account the deformity to the Plaintiff's ankle and therefore grant her SR250, 000 in respect of corporal damages to include her claim for loss of amenities and permanent disability. 1grant her a further sum economic loss amounting to SRI,089.312 in total, of SRIOO,000 for moral damages in terms of her pain and suffering. In respect of her claim for material damages that is economic loss and there is an future insufficiency of evidence to support her claim. Her Employer paid her wages for four months while she was off work. She claimed that after that period she received disability benefit amounting to SR2, 500 per monthly whilst she had enjoyed an average salary of SR 8000 monthly previously. Since her employer paid her salary until December 2013, I am prepared to compensate the Plaintiff in the difference in her wages after that period. I have a difficulty in ascertaining the end date for such a However, computation as the medical evidence is equivocal as to when she was able to return to work. She has claimed for economic loss for five years. She was clearly walking in 2014 although with pain and discomfort. She has also brought evidence to support her claim that she cannot find alternative employment. since she was earning SR8000 monthly and was able to walk properly for at least two years and received SR2500from the Social Security Department monthly, I am willing to grant her the difference in earnings. Had she workedfor the twenty-four months she received SR 60,000from she would have received SR192,000.instead, Social Security. She is entitled to the difference in earnings is, I cannot entertain the Plaintiff's claim for future economic SR132,000. loss as there is insufficient evidence to support such a claim. In the circumstances, the sum of SR250,000 for corporal damage, SR100,000 for moral damage and SR132,000for material damage - a total ofSR 482,000. The whole with costs. " In the spirit of fairness I order the Defendant to pay the plaintiff that [53] Learned counsel concluded that on the basis that the 1sf and the 2nd Plaintiffs have proved their case on a balance ofprobabilities and have established liability against the Defendant, the Court should make an adequate award of damages in favour of the l " and 2nd Plaintiffs in order to appropriately reflect the corporal, moral and material damages suffered by the Plaintiffs with interest and costs. [54] The law as provided by articles 1383 and 1149 have been rehearsed and produced above: 1383: A person is liable for harm caused not only by his or her actions but also by his or her negligence or imprudence. 1149: (2)Damages are also recoverable for any injury to or loss of rights of personality, including pain, suffering, aesthetic loss, and the loss of any of the amenities of life, which cannot be quantified infinancial terms. (3) Damages payable under paragraphs (1) and (2) and under articles 1150 to J 154 apply as appropriate to the breach ofa contract and to the commission ofa delict. (4) (a)In the case of delicts, the award of damages may take the form of a lump sum or a periodic payment. [55] Article J 382 also makes further provisions in this respect, particularly 1382(2): 1382 (1) Every human act that causes harm (dommage) to another requires the person by whose fault the harm occurred to repair it. (2)(a)Fault is an error of conduct that would not have been committed by a prudent person in the circumstances. (b)Fault may be the result of an act or an omission. (c)Fault may also consist of an act or an omission the dominant purpose of which is to cause harm to another, even if it appears to have been done in the exercise of a legitimate interest. (3)(a)Aperson is responsible for fault, original or contributory, only to the extent of that person's capacity of discernment. (b)This paragraph does not apply to a person who knowingly deprives him or herselfof the power of discernment (4)(a)An agreement to exclude liability for intentional or negligent harm is null. (b) Voluntary assumption of risk is implied from participation in a lawful game. [56] In this case, the issue is not medical negl igence per se which caused or resulted in any sort of physical injury or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. In fact, I note from the start that the cases referred to by learned counsel for the Plaintiffs in his submission on the quantification of damages are for claims where the Plaintiff suffered some SOlt of injury and/or pain and suffering. In this case, The Doctors in question are not being challenged for their medical skills but for their administrative efficiency to ensure that medical tests for covid-19 are carried out and results communicated as well as decisions taken on whether to allow a person tested to travel or to remain in isolation with the issuance of the necessary letter of authorization. [57] On analysis of the evidence, in respect of the I" Plaintiff, since the I" Plaintiff was tested positive for covid-19 on the 2nd January, 2021 after taking the test on the l " January, he had to isolate himself for 10 days. He could not have left Seychelles unti I the 12thJanuary, 2021 at the earliest. I therefore cannot agree with the perceived logic of the I" Plaintiff book a flight on the l1'h January and requesting a letter of clearance to leave Seychelles prior to him having completed his period of isolation. I find from the evidence that the fact that the 1st Plaintiff had to cancel his flight booked for the 11thJanuary, 2021, was not due to him not having been informed of the result of a covid-19 tests or not having been a letter of clearance. As testified by both Doctors Annassee and Sanjeev, 10 days from the date of ISI Plaintiff's isolation was to end at the earliest midnight of the 1]lh /12th January, 2021. Hence any letter of clearance that was to be issued could only be for use after completion of isolation which would be the 12th January, 2021. On that aspect I agree with the testimonies of Doctors Annassee and Sanjeev. [58] Secondly, I considered the fact that the health authorities were busy and letters were not r do not agree with the Defendant being dispatched on time. that such unprecedented medical emergency should be considered as sufficient defence to a claim of negligence. However in this actual case, that was not the reason the 1stPlaintiff could not leave on the 11thJanuary, 2021. He could not have left anyway in view that his period of isolation had not expired. I therefore do not find the Defendant's omissions of not issuing a result and clearance letter to the JStPlaintiff by or before the 1 }th January, 2021 was the real reason the JStPlaintiff had to cancel his flight from Seychelles to Dubai on the 1ph January 2021. The Defendant was correct not to issue the same until he had concluded his period of isolation. The consequential effect of the l " Plaintiff having to cancel his flight which he had booked to depart prior the ending of his isolation period and the requirement for him to undertake a second PCR test, on the 11thJanuary, in order to depart from Seychelles at or around the 1yh January 2021 cannot be attributed to the Defendant. [59] Furthermore, it was the l " Plaintiff who had to and did book his own flights. The fact that he booked a flight to travel prior to the conclusion of his quarantine and the next one on the 15thcannot be attributed to or as a result of not having been given clearance by the 11th January, when he was still supposed to be in isolation. Since I find that the Defendant was not at fault in his case, the claim of the JStPlaintiff has not been proved on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, the claim by the l " Plaintiff is dismissed. The claim for pleaded for loss and damages cannot be awarded and are dismissed accordingly. [60] In respect of the 2nd Plaintiff, the evidence showed that her covid-19 test undertaken on the jStJanuary, 2021 was negative but having been in close proximity of the l " Plaintiff, the set regulations required her to either remain in isolation for 14 days or to opt for early release and complete her isolation in the country of her destination. The 15t Plaintiff initially opted to remain in Seychelles but then decided to leave for Dubai on the 8th of January, requesting a clearance letter for the 8th January after taking a PCR test. The 2nd Plaintiff maintains that she was informed that her test result was lost which is denied by the Defendant witnesses. She was issued with a clearance letter and departed Seychelles on the 9thJanuary, 2021. The 2nd Plaintifffailed to satisfactorily explain why she was issued with a clearance letter allowing her to travel ifher test result was not available. [61] J am satisfied that that the 2nd Plainti ff took the test on the 7thto travel on the 8thbut since the result was not ready by the 8thshe could not be issued with a letter of clearance until the 9thJanuary, 2021. There is a distinction between a delay resulting from a deliberate or negligent act or omission as claimed by the 2nd Plaintiff and a delay resulting from the necessary and unavoidable exigencies of the situation as maintained by the Defendant. In this case, the evidence showed that for whatever reason, the Defendant could not deliver the result and clearance letter for the 2nd Plaintiff to travel the next day. [62] Secondly, the finding of fault does not depend on the expectations of the Plaintiff. It depends on the performance 01' lack thereof of the Defendant. It does not follow therefore that if the Plaintiff sets her own schedule without any input from the Defendant and if the Defendant is unable to meet the Plaintiff's set schedule, there must be negligence on the part of the Defendant. In the case of Cassidy vs. Ministry of Health (1951) 2. KB348 at 359, Denning J stated: "if a man goes to a doctor because he is ill, no one doubts that the doctor must exercise reasonable care and skill in his treatment on him; and that is so whether the doctor is paid for his services or not". In Bolamv Friem Hospital Management Committee (1957)2. All. E. R 118, at 12J the test applicable is what ought to have been done in the circumstances by the reasonable or ordinary skilled competent man in the circumstances. [63] As I started the analysis above, there has been no question about the medical competence of the Defendant's agents. The Plaintiffs' case is founded on the claim that the Defendant failed to meet the Plaintiffs' demands as and when they requested. The Defendant's agents on the other hand were acting in accordance with set procedures for the pandemic outbreak which is reasonable to expect that there was likelihood of delay in performing tests, communicating results and issuing clearance letters. There is no evidence presented by the 2nd Plaintiff that the Defendant's agents acted below the standard required of them in the prevailing circumstances on medical expertise. Hence the medical negligence cases referred to by the Plaintiffs have no bearing on this claim. [64] On the other hand, the 2nd Plaintiff was not restricted from departing the country provided she took a peR test or she opted to take the test at her destination. The 2nd Plaintiff waited until the last day prior to her departure to take the test. I find that by so doing she contributed Consequently, substantially to the delay of clearance. r find that the even if the delay by the Defendant to issue the clearance letter issued with in being a letter by one day caused the 2nd Plaintiff to change her travel plan to the 9th January, she contributed substantially to that situation by not acting as a diligently but ordinary person in her stead would have done. Consequently, on the balance of probabilities, I do find the Defendant to have been partly at fault but the 2nd Plaintiff contributed equally to her predicament by at least 50 percent. [65] I also find the claim ofSCR 100,000 to be on the extremely high side for the circumstances of this case. I find that a maximum sum for full moral damages would have been around SCR50,000. In view of her contributing to the delay, I award the 2nd Plaintiff the sum of SCR 21,500/- as moral damage for inconvenience. Since she did not make any claim for her additional night in Seychelles, no award is made in that respect. As for the expenses the 2nd Plaintiff incurred in Dubai, I find that the 2nd Plaintiff failed to satisfied the Court that these were solely attributable to the Defendant as the evidence showed the all the countries had set protocols to deal with the covid-19 situation in their respective jurisdictions. [66] This claim of the l " Plaintiff is therefore dismissed in its entirety and any consequential claim for damages is denied and dismissed accordingly. [67] The 2nd Plaintiff is awarded the total sum of SCR 21,500/-for moral damage only. [68] I make no order for costs. Signed, dated and delivered on the 8th day of July 2024 at lie du Port, Mahe, Seychelles. G. Dodin Judge 27