Kasi Trading v United Africa Feeder Line & Ors (CS 109/2020) [2021] SCSC 971 (30 July 2021)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable [2021] SCSC . Q/2 CSI09/2020 KASI TRADING Plaintiff Represented by its Direcetor R Kasinathan (rep. by S. Rajasundaram) and UNITED AFRICA FEEDER LINE (unrep. ) 1"Defendantt BENELUX FREIGHT & LOGISTICS LLC DABAI (unrep) 2nd Defendant CMA GGM SHIPPING LINE (rep. by Edith Wong) SOCIETE SEYCHELLOISE NAVIGATION (rep. by Edith Wong) SEYCHELLES PORT AUTHORITY (rep. by Joel Camille) 3rd Defendant 4th Defendant 5th Defendant Neutral Citation Before: Summary Heard: Delivered: Kasi Trading v United Africa Feeder Line & Drs CS 109 2020 [2020] SCSC 61.3... (delivered on 30 July 2021 Vidot J Prescription; Article 2271(1) of the Civil Code counsels filed written submissions 30 July 2021 RULING VIDOT J [I] The Plaintiff sues the Defendants in delict. The case arise out of a fire that broke out at the port which damaged a container holding goods for the Plaintiff. It is averred that goods belonging to the Plaintiff, who is a registered trading company involved in the imports, wholesale and distribution of all general goods in Seychelles, were damaged beyond salvation. As a result of the damage the Plaintiff claims AEDSO,OS9.50 SR264,593. SS. [2] The Ist Defendant is said to be a shipping line that is locally represented at all material times by its agent, the 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant also acts as agent of various shipping lines. [3] The Plaintiff avers that 3rd Defendant is also an international shipping line represented locally by its agent, the 4thDefendant. The 5thDefendant is a statutory body in charge of sea ports in the Seychelles, having control over all other agencies working within the vicinity and defined zone in sea ports. [4] The Plaintiff alleges that it had received a consignment of merchandise from the Port of Dubai delivered to the Plaintiff through the 2nd Defendant. The consignment arrived in Seychelles in May 2015. They had completed all formal import formalities and waiting for clearance to take delivery of the container which contained the goods from Port Victoria. [5] It is averred that the 4th Defendant on behalf of the yd Defendant at all material times were having their own containers in Port Victoria including a container that was placed next to the Plaintiff's container. Their containers is said to have contained hazardous and inflammable material that when a wild fire broke out in the port, the container caught fire and released dense smoke and affected many other containers, including the Plaintiff's container. As a result, the Plaintiff's merchandise was completely destroyed. [6] The Plaintiff now sues the Defendants jointly and severally for damages for his lost consignment. Defendant acknowledge receipt of the Plaintiffs claim but went on to state in bold that "[Tjhat this message is sent without prejudice and shall not be construed as an acknowledgement of liability anyhow. " [15] Counsel for the yd Defendant referred to Encyclopedie Dalloz Verba Prescription paragraph 184, which states in relation to reconnaissance volontaire du posseseur (article 2248) that "La reconnaissance express n 'est soumise a acune forme special. Elle peut les lettres missives, pouvu q 'elles ne laisse aucune doute resulter d'ecrites quelconques: sur I 'intention de celui qui I 'ei ecrite. " [16] It is clear from Dalloz that the document which the Plaintiff wishes interrupt prescription must leave no doubt in the mind of the reader that the other party has accepted circumstances so as to interrupt prescription. The emails do not establish that. The 3rd Defendant has clearly stated in the email that liability is not being accepted. In fact what the emails state is that the Defendants are trying to close the case. The fact that the yd Defendant, in the email acknowledges receipt of the claim that cannot translate into meaning that liability is admitted. The 3rd Defendant it is to be reminded as pleaded in the Plaint was the agent for the 4th Defendant. [17] In the circumstances I find that the action of the Plaintiff is prescribed by virtue of Article 2272(1) of the Civil Code therefore dismiss the Plaint. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on 30 July 2021 ~\ \ 4