Mauritian Union Assurance v Laurence (CA 13 of 2025) [2025] SCSC 90 (23 May 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable [2025] CA 30/2021 In the matter between: l\1AURITIUS UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (rep. Mr. Bernard Georges) Appellant And GARRY LAURENCE (rep. by Ms. Pillay) Respondent Neutral Citation: Mauritian Union Assurance vs Laurence (CA 30/2021) [2025] (23rd May 2025) Esparon J Appeal against the decision of the learned Magistrate By way of written submissions 23rd May 2025· .. .... , . JtmGl\1ENT . . Before: Summary: Heard: Delivered: ESPARON J Introduction [1] This is an Appeal against the decision of the leamed Magistrate in CS 36 of 2019. [2] The Respondent has filed a preliminary objection to the hearing of this Appeal namely that the Appeal has been filed out of time and that Appellant is accordingly prescribed. This Court shall first deal with the preliminary objections. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSELS [3] In his submissions, Counsel has relied on the provisions of the law namely Rule 6 of the rules made under the Courts Act and section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act and submitted to the Court that since Judgment was delivered on the 23rd day of November 2021, that the counting of the period of time commences on the 24th November 2021 in accordance with section 57(1) (a) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act. Furthermore according to counsel, as Saturdays and public holidays are included in the calculation of time limit in line with section 57(g) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act, that the last day of the period in this present case is the 7thDecember 2021 which was not an excluded day in accordance with section 57(4) of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act and hence counsel submitted that the Appellant is 7 days out of time and as such the Appeal should be dismissed with cost. [4] On the other hand, Counsel for the Appellant submitted to the Court that the Appellant has filed its Notice of Appeal on the 14thDecember 2021 and the said judgment was delivered on the 23rd November 2021. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the provisions of the law namely Rule 6(2) of the Appeal Rules made under the Courts Act and section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act. Counsel also relied on section 4 (c) of the Civil Code of Seychelles (Consequence of Enactment) Act 2021 and the Public Holidays Act (Act 19 of 1976) and submitted that the Respondent was within the statutory time Limit when it filed its notice of Appeal and that according to counsel, he filed his Appeal on the last day of the fourteenth day period. [5] Counsel further submitted that it is clear from the above provisions of the law that Saturdays and Public Holidays are excluded for the purposes of computation of time for filing an appeal and so is the day of the decision of the Court. This is in view that the Interpretation and General Provisions Act should be read together with the Public Holidays Act. Counsel for the Appellant relied on the following cases namely Oceanic Motors V Steve Savy CA 25/2021, Junia Albert and Ors V Hill View Resorts Seychelles CA 21/2021(2022) and Robin Nassib and Inese Fostel VIS Flory Rosette CA 01/23 where the Court held that Saturdays and Public Holidays are excluded in the computation of time for filing Appeals. THE LAW [6] This Court hereby reproduces the following relevant provisions of the law; [7] S. I 11 of 1961 as regards to the Appeal rules made under the Courts Act namely rule 6(2) of the Appeal rules made under the Courts Act provides that 'the Notice of Appeal shall be delivered to the clerk of the Court within 14 days from the date of the decision Appealed against unless some other period is expressly provided by law which authorizes the Appeal'. [8] Rule 5 of the same Rules provides that 'any party desiring an extension of time prescribed for taking any step may apply to the Supreme Court by motion and such extension as is reasonable in the circumstances may be granted on any ground which the Supreme COUlt considers sufficient' . [9] It follows that in an Appeal in civil cases from the Magistrates Court to the Supreme Court, the Appellant has 14 days to file his Appeal in the Registry of the Supreme Court from the decision of the learned Magistrate in default of which an Application must be filed to the Supreme Court asking for leave of the Court to Appeal outside the time limit and as such the Court may grant such leave on any ground which the Court considers sufficient. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION [10] Since days is not defined in the said law and regulation, Section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act is applicable to the present case and reads as follows; (a) a period reckoned by days from the happening of an event or the doing of any act or thing is exclusive of the day on which the event happens or the thing; (b) where a period is expressed to begin or end at, on or with a specified day or to continue to or until a specified day, the period shall include that day; (c) where a period is expressed to begin after or to be from a specified day the period shall not include that day; (d) where the last day of a period is an excluded day, the period includes the next following day (not being an excluded day; and (e) where an act or proceeding may be or is required to be done or taken on a certain day and that day is an excluded day, the act may be done or the proceeding taken on the next following day (not being an excluded day) [11] This Court takes notice that there was an amendment made to the Interpretation and General Provisions Act by (Act 24 of 2021) in the Civil Code of Seychelles (Consequence of Enactment) Act, 2021. Section 4 of the said Act now defines excluded day as a Saturday, a public holiday, or a bank holiday declared under section 64 of the Financial Institution Act. [12] In the case of Cheng Sheng Kuie v The Financial Services Authority (CA 01/2022) (18 November 2024), Esparon 1. held the following; 'As a result of the above provisions of the law, it is clear that the day of the decision itself is not counted for the purpose of the computation of time and it is only when the day of filing an Appeal falls on an excluded day that is on a Saturday, Sunday or apublic holiday, it shall not be counted for the purpose of computation of time in lodging an Appeal. 1 therefore disagree with the submissions of counseljar the Appellant that since Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays are excluded days, they should not be countedfor the purpose of computation of time in lodging an Appeal subject to what 1have said above at paragraph 31 of this Judgment '. [13] This Court holds the view that the cases of Oceanic Motors V Steve Savy CA 25/021, Junia Albert and Ors V Hill View Resorts Seychelles CA 2112021(2022) and Robin Nassib and Inese Fostel VIS Flory Rosette CA 01123 were wrongly decided and hence I shall depart from following the said cases and follow the decision in the case of Cheng Sheng Kuie v The Financial Services Authority (CA 0112022) (18 November 2024). [14] As a result of the above, I disagree with the submissions of counsel for the Appellant that Saturdays and Public Holidays are excluded for the purposes of computation of time for filing an Appeal. I therefore hold that it is clear from the above provisions of the law namely Section 57 of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act read with the Civil Code of Seychelles (Consequence of Enactment) Act that the day of the decision itself is not counted for the purpose of the computation of time and it is only when the last day for filing an Appeal falls on an excluded day that is on a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday, it shall not be counted for the purpose of computation of time in lodging an Appeal. [15] This Court takes note that the said decision was delivered by the learned Magistrate on the 23rd of November 2021 and the Appeal was filed in the Registry of the Supreme on the 14th December 2021. Taking into account of what I have said at paragraph 14 of this ruling, I hold that this Appeal was filed 21 days from the date of delivery of the Judgment by the learned Magistrate and hence 7 days out of time. [J6] In the case of Jean VIS Inter- Island boat limited, Civil Appeal 44 of20 12, Egonde-Ntende CJ relied on the decision in the case of Aglae v Attorney General SCA 35 of 2010 which cited in approval the words of the Privy Council in the case of Ratnam VIS Curmarasamy (1964) All E. R 933 of which the Court held the following; " The rules of Court mustprima facie be obeyed, and in order tojustify a court in extending the time during which some step in procedure requires to be taken, there must be some material on which the Court can exercise its discretion. If the law requires otherwise a party in breach would have an unqualified right to an extension of time which would defeat thepurpose of the rules which is to provide a time tablefor the conduct of litigation '. [17] The court in the case of Jean (supra) held that 'the Applicant has not explained the 3 months' delay in failing to take any step with regard to a possible Appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal. This is fatal to his Application. Parties and their legal advisors must understand that this Court will enforce the time standards established by the rules'. [18] This COUlitake note that the Appellant has not filed any Application for leave of this Court seeking an order to extend the time for filing an Appeal out of time in accordance with Rule 5 of the Appeal rules made under the Courts Act. [19] The above being the case, this Court shall follow the decision in the case of Jean VIS Inter Island boat limited, Civil Appeal 44 of 2012, where Egonde- Ntende CJ relied on the decision in the case of Aglae v Attorney General SCA 35 of2010 which cited in approval the words of the Privy Council in the case of Ratnam VIS Currnarasamy (1964) All E. R 933 which held that 'the rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed and that parties and their legal advisors must understand that this Court will enforce the time standards established by the rules'. As a result, since the Appellant has lodge his Appeal before this Court 7 days out of time and that no leave Application has been filed for leave of this Court seeking an order from this Court to extend the time for filing an Appeal out of time of which the Appellant has not advanced any reason for this Court to condone such delay, this Court finds that this is fatal to the Appeal. [20] As a result of the above, I accordingly dismiss this Appeal with cost. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du on 23rd May 2025. ~r)PQ'y~ D. Esparon J 6