Zatte v Seychelles Public Transport Corporation (CA 10 of 2022) [2023] SCSC 324 (18 April 2023)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable [2023] SCSC '~d-t4 CA 10//2022 Appellant In the matter between: JIMMY ZATTE (Self-represented) and SEYCHELLES PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORPORATION (represented (Represented by Ms Edith Wong) by its Managing Director) Respondent Neutral Citation: Zatte vs Seychelles Public Transport Corporation (CA 10/2022) [2023] Before: Summary: _ Heard: Delivered: SCSC &J~ (18th April 2023) Adeline J Prescription/Section 2271 Civil Code of Seychelles Act/Plea in limine litis/Whether plaint is prescribed by law (By Submission) 1 March 2023 1~th April 2023 ------------~~----------------------------------------------- FINAL ORDER The plea in limine litis raised in respect of the time limitation for the filing of the plaint succeeds in as much as the failure to file the plaint within the five years prescribed under Section 2271 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act is fatal to the plaintiff s case. The decision of the Court as first instance is therefore upheld, and the plaint is dismissed. Adeline, J ORDER [1] The Appellant in this appeal, one Jimmy Zatte of Belombre, Mahe, Seychelles has commenced proceedings in this Appellate court by way of Notice of Appeal filed in court on the 22lld April 2022 pursuant to Rule 6 of the Appeal Rules made under Statutory Instrument (SI) 11 of 1961 which came into force on the 27th February, 1961. [2] By this appeal, the Appellant appeals against the ruling of the leamed Sr Magistrate Vipin, Mathew, Benjamin delivered on the 1st April 2022 in CS No: 43/2021, in which ruling, Sr Magistrate Vipin had ruled, that the plaint filed by the Appellant (the Plaintiff then) against the Seychelles Public Transport Corporation (the Defendant then), was time barred for the reason that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit. [3] Such a ruling was sought for, and indeed necessary, after the Defendant had in its statement of defence to the plaint, raised a preliminary objection in the form of a plea in limine litis that reads as follows; "1. The plaint filed on the 2nd day of August 2021, has been brought out of the 5 year time limit, prescribed by law, and this Honourable court should not entertain it, and 2. The plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant, and therefore, ought to have been struck off, and dismissed under Section 39 of the courts Act ". [4] A brief account of the facts that has led to this Appeal stems from the fact, that the Appellant (the Plaintiff then) had on the 2nd August 2021 commenced proceedings by way of a plaint in delict filed in the Magistrate's court, alleging "faute" against the Respondent (the Defendant then) claiming the total sum of SCR 300,000 with interest at the current bank rate with cost. [5] On the issue as to whether or not the Appellant (the Plaintiff then) was time barred at the time he filed the plaint in court on the 2nd August 2021, and was thus foul of Article 2271 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, 2020 ("the Act") it was argued, and indeed submitted by the Plaintiff before the court at first instance, interalia, that by virtue of the SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTION AND TIME LIMIT A TION PERIOD (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020 ("the Act") enacted during the surge of the COVID 19 pandemic, that the five years limitation period prescribed under Article 2271 of the Act for bringing such action to court was suspended, and therefore, litigants were allowed to file such action in court beyond the prescribed period five years. [6] As regards to the same issue, it was argued, and indeed submitted by the Respondent before the court at first instance, that the plea in limine litis raised on that particular point should be upheld, and the plaint dismissed with cost. It was the contention of the Respondent (the Defendant then) that as per Gazette Notice No 35112020 dated 25th May 2020, the suspension period referred to under Section 2 of the Act commenced on the 20th March 2020, and ended on the 25th May 2020. [7] It was also contended by the Respondent (the Defendant then) that as per Section 5 (2) of the Act, had the Appellant's (the Plaintiff then) last day to file his plaint fell within the 'suspension period, by virtue of Section 5 (2) of the Act, he would have had an additional 21 days from the 25th May 2020 to do so, that is, to file his plaint within time. [8] The Respondent (the Defendant then) further contended, that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (a) and 5 (2) (a) & (b) of the Act did not apply to the Plaintiff because he had up to the 16th April 2021 to file his plaint, and that did not fall within the suspension period provided for under the Act. [9] Inhis submission before the COUli, the Appellant, (the Plaintiff then) made specific mention of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act, contending, that it was under such provision that the suspension took effect in order to allow litigants to file their case beyond the prescribed time period due to the covid-19 pandemic. [10] In addition, the Plaintiff also submitted, that because of the covid 19 pandemic, the court was closed for several weeks in early 2021 until it reopened on the 12thFebruary 2021, and as such, court services were restricted that made it impossible for the Plaintiff to file his plaint within the prescribed time limit. [11] As regards to the contention raised as plea in limine litis that the plaint discloses no reasonable cause of action against the Defendant (now the Respondent) the Plaintiff submitted, that the premises where the incident happened that resulted to his injuries is in respect of a parcel of land bearing title V 9006 which the Defendant has leased from the Government. [12] In his submission in answer to the Plaintiffs submission, particularly, in respect of the provisions of the Act, leamed counsel submitted, that the suspension period under Section 2 of the Act commenced on the 20 March 2020 and expired on the 25th May 2020, and therefore, as per the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, had the Plaintiff final day to file his action had fallen within the suspension period, that would have meant, that he has had an additional 21 days from the 25th of May 2020 to file his action which he did not do. [13] - ·It was the contention of leamed counsel in his submission, that the provisions of Section 3(l)(a) and 5 (2) (a) and (b) did not apply to the Plaintiff in this case because he had to file his action in court by latest 16th April 2021 which did not fall within the suspended period. [14] On the Plaintiffs contention, that he could not file his plaint within the prescribed time limit because the court closed for several weeks due to the covid 19 pandemic, leamed counsel refuted that suggestion, and referred the COUli to an email from the Registrar of the Supreme COUl1 dated 9th January 2021, confirming, that the court was still operational and functioning, Leamed counsel also made the point, that the Plaintiff had up to the 16th April 2021, and that he could have well filed his action within time. [15] The Plaintiff did produce further written submission dated 26th January 2022, but said nothing new, save to add, that "the courts were further shut down from the 16th March 2021 for two weeks". [16] In his Memorandum of Appeal the Appellants (previously the Plaintiff) states his grounds of Appeal to be the following; "(a) The learned Senior Magistrate erred in dismissing the plaint of the Appellant on the basis that he had filed his suit outside the prescribed period of time despite the reasons given' by the Appellant that he was within the prescribed time. (b) The learned Senior Magistrate erred in his ruling at paragraph 23 in stating, that there was no similar email sent by the Registrar of the Supreme Court on the 161h March 2021, and that the Appellant has notfiled the same before the Court. (c) In all circumstances, the Ruling of the learned Senior Magistrate was wrong on thefact and in law ". [17] In essence, Article 2271 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act prescribes the law that provides, -that the right of action in the instant case must have been instituted within a period - of five yearsfrorn the date the cause of action arose on the 220d April 2016, which the Plaintiff did not do. It is not disputed between the parties that proceedings were not instituted within the time limitation period because the plaint was only filed on the 2nd August 2021. [18] However, in reliance on Section 3 (1) (a) of the SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTION AND TIME LIMITATION PERIOD (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020 (Act 17 of 2020), the Plaintiff maintains, that he was not time barred to file the plaint on the 2nd August 2021 because such statutory provision states, that a prescription period or time limitation period within which legal proceedings or intended legal proceedings may be initiated or commenced shall be deemed to be suspended during the period of the suspension period. The Plaintiff also gives the excuse that the court was closed for several weeks in early 2021 due to the Covid - 19 pandemic and that it only reopened on the 12thFebruary 2021, and that as such, he could not file the plaint within time. [19] Therefore, whether the Plaintiff was within or outside the time limitation period when he filed the plaint on the 2nd August 2021 is to be determined on the strict interpretation ofthe provisions of THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRESCRIPTION AND TIME LIMITATION PERIOD (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 2020, which shall now be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. [20] As correctly stated in the Ruling of Sr Magistrate Vipin, Mathew Benjamin, in 2020, the SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTION AND TIME LIMITATION PERIOD (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 2020 was enacted, the effect of which prescription was suspended from the 20th March 2020, which in effect, as per Section 2 of the Act, was the Act commencement date. Under Section 2 of the Act, "suspension period" is given the following meaning; "Suspension period means the period commencing from the commencements date to the expiry of the suspension period". [21] The specific-provision 'of the Act that provides for suspension of prescription period is Section 3(1) of the Act that reads as follows; "3 (1) The provisions of any Act or Statutory Instrument which establish, prescribe or specify - (a) A prescription period or time limitation period, within which legal proceedings or intended legal proceedings may be initiated or commenced. (b) A time limit within which any legal procedure, step or process ought to be completed in any legal proceedings, or (c) Any time limit within which any procedure, steps, process, decision or compliance with any notice or order ought to be completed, taken or complied with, as the case may b "e . [22] Section 3 (2) of the Act, provides that; ,... "(2) Where Section 3 (1) is applicable the suspension period shall be excluded in calculating the prescription period time limitation or time limit, as the case may be ". [23] In his endeavour to determine the issue at hand, Sr Magistrate Vipin had regards to Section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act which prescribed how time should be computed. I have revisited Sr Magistrate Vipin's computation and is satisfied, that he has made no mistake and error in arriving to his conclusion. Five years from the nnd April 2016 when the cause of action arose, means, that the counting started from the 23rc! April 2016, and that the five years thereafter ended on the 23rd April 2021. [24] The period of suspension prescribed under the Act was from 20th March 2020 up to 25th May 2020 which suspension period, admittedly, intenupted the time period for the Plaintiff to file his claim. The 25th of May 2020, as the date of the end period of suspension was figured out by reference to Gazette Notice No. 351/2020 of Gazette 52/2020 dated 25 May 2020 (Suspension of Prescription and Time Limitation period (Temporary Provisions) Act, ·2020 (Expiration of Suspension Period Notice 2020) suspension period under Section 2 of ·the SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTION AND TIME LIMITATION PERIOD (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 2020, commencing on the 20th March 2020, ending on the 25th May 2020. [25] The period from zo- March 2020 to 25th May 2020 adds up to two months (60 days) and five days. Adding the two months (or 60 days) and five days to the 24th April 2021 (when the prescriptive period to file the plaint ended) take us up to the 29th June 2021, the date the prescribed period would have ended, taking into account the period of suspension. Therefore, the Plaintiff had up to the 29th June 2021 to file his plaint which he did not do until the 2nd August 2021 when he was time barred by then. [26] Furthermore, the contention by the Plaintiff, that the closure of the court house from the 11th January 2021 to 12 February 2021, and from 16thMarch 2021 for two weeks could not have hindered the filing of the Plaintiff s plaint in time because the courts' registry was at all times functioning as normal, although COUl1s'proceedings were on halt. [27] In the final analysis, I am in agreement with the finding of Sr Magistrate Vip in, that this plaint was filed before the cOUl1at first instance outside the prescribed time limitation period of five years provided for under Section 2271 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act, 2020 and that, notwithstanding the attempts made by the Plaintiff to rely on the provisions of the SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTION AND TIME LIMITATION PERIOD (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) ACT 2020 to substantiate his proposition that he was within time, he was out of time and therefore time barred when he filed the plaint on the 2nd August 2021. [28] I therefore find, that Sr Magistrate Vipin, Mathew, Benjamin made no error of facts and law in determining the plea in limine litis, and that his conclusion that "the present plaint has fallen Sh011of the time prescribed to file the plaint as per the law", and to "dismiss it because it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit under the law" was the correct one. [29] I am accordingly of the view, that the plea in limine litis raised in respect of the time limitation for the filing of the plaint should succeed in as much as the failure to file the ! . plaint within the five years prescribed under Section 2271 of the Civil Code of Seychelles Act is fatal to the Plaintiff's case. The decision of the Court at first instance is therefore upheld, and the plaint is dismissed. [30] I make no order to cost. Signed, dated and delivered at He du POJ118 April 2023. 8