Vel v Albert & Anor (CS 29/2016) [2016] SCSC 282 (21 April 2016)

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 Table of contents Search [] Dodin  J RULING [1]  The Applicant,  Sally Martine  Vel, applied  to the Court  for an interlocutory  prohibitory injunction  to  be  issued  against  the  Respondents   Lucille  Albert  and  Rennick  Mathiot, prohibiting    the Respondents  from playing  loud music causing  incessant  nuisance  to the Applicant  and her  17 year  old son  who  is currently  taking  his "0" Level examination pending the determination  of the main suit by the Supreme Court. [2]  The  Respondents  object  to the application  maintaining  that they  do  not play  any  loud music  and  that  such  prohibitory   injunction  would  infringe  their  right  to  enjoy  their property including listening to music of their choice. [3]  The  Respondents  maintain  that this application  is malicious,  vexatious  and an abuse  of the  Court's    process   for  political   reasons   as  the  parties   are  of  different   political persuasions    and the Applicant  is using the Court  to stop the Respondents  from playing opposition political songs and in any event such injunction will be difficult to implement. [4]  I have carefully  studied  the application  and heard learned counsel  for the Applicant  and Respondents. [5]  In order to allow  the course  of justice  to prevail  and  prevent  the fruits  of justice  from being defeated.  the Court  is empowered  to grant  interim  injunction  which  may  remain operative  until the further orders of the Court or the final determination  of the matters in issue. The judicial  precedents  have set up some  basic conditions  to be satisfied  for the grant of the interim relief of injunction. [6]  These  are  (1)  that  a prima  facie  case  must  have  been  established,  (2) that  irreparable damage  would  be caused to the Petitioner  or his interest and (3) that or the balance  of convenience    an  interlocutory   injunction  would  best serve  the  interest  of justice.  The Court  must  be satisfied  that there  is a serious  question  to be tried  if the test  of 'prima facie'  case is satisfied. [7]  The  Petitioner  must  satisfy  the  Court  that  the  injunction  is  highly  necessary  without which the  right of the party concerned  cannot  be protected  and such  loss or damage  is also not compensable. [8]  In satisfying these conditions  the Petitioner must also satisfy the Court that the balance of convenience  is in his favour. This preventive  relief is not granted as a matter of right but at the discretion  of the Court only if the above conditions are satisfied. [9]  In this  case  I am satisfied  that there  is a real  issue of nuisance  to  be tried  and  that  if interim relief is not granted, the damage to be suffered by the Applicant  or her son would be irreparable. [10]  I also  find  that  on  balance  of  convenience   and  in  the  interest  of justice   an  interim injunction    is necessary  to keep the peace  until the main matter  is tried  by the Supreme Court. [11]  I therefore hereby make the following orders: [12]  I grant an interim injunction as prayed by the Applicant  ordering the Respondents: (a) Not   to   play    loud    amplified    music   of   any   kind    pending    the determination    of the    main    case by the Supreme Court. (b) To  maintain determination peace of the and main quiet  in  the  neighbourhood pending the main case by the Supreme Court. [13]  Cost to follow the event. Signed, dated and delivered at lie du Port on 21 April 2016