Seychelles Trading Company v Ghianni (CA 14 of 2024) [2025] SCSC 21 (21 February 2025)

SUPREME COURT OF SEYCHELLES Reportable CA 14/2024 In the matter between: SEYCHELLES TRADING COMPANY Appellant of Victoria Mahe Seychelles (rep. by Mr. Brian Julie) and FEDERICA GHIANNI of Marie Jeanne Estate Praslin Seychelles (rep. by Mr. Somasundaram Rajasundaram) Respondent Neutral Citation: Before: Summary: Heard: Delivered: STC v Ghianni (CA 14/2024) 21 February 2025 Adeline J Appeal to the Supreme COUIiagainst the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal By Submissions 21 February 2025 The Notice of Appeal is struck out, and the Judgment of The Employment Tribunal in ET 23/2021 is upheld. ORDER RULING ON MOTION Adeline J [1] By Notice of Appeal dated 3rd June 2024, filed in Court on the 4thJune 2024, Seychelles Trading Company (STC), the Appellant in these appeal proceedings, commenced legal proceedings in the Supreme Court against one Federica Ghianni, the Respondent, by which it sought to appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal 111 a Judgment delivered in ET 23/2021, dated 14th May 2024, ("the Judgment"). [2] At paragraph 52 of the Judgment, the Employment Tribunal makes the following pronouncement; "[52} Based on the above this learned Tribunal hereby enters Judgment in favour of the Applicant/or a claim against the respondent in the total sum o/SCR 203.337.02 as adduced above with interest at 4% and costfrom the date offiling of this application" [3] In accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules, on the 17th September 2024, learned counsel for the Appellant filed in Court of Memorandum of Appeal replicated here under; MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. The Employment Tribunal erred in not taking thefollowing undisputed facts into consideration; a) That the Respondent committed theft when she allowed other employees oj the Appellant to have access to monies collectedfrom sales; b) That the Respondent was heavily involved in misappropriating company funds; c) 771Cltthe Respondent committed an offence involving dishonesty, breach of trust, deception orfraudulent practice during the performance of her duties; d) That the Respondent admitted thefollowing during cross examination (i) Accepting orders from the Retail Manager not to bank the proceeds 0/ sale as per established procedure and against company policy; (ii) Failing to bankproceedsfrom sale on a daily basis and never reported this malpractice to management. 2. The Employment Tribunal erred in not taking the internal auditor's report into consideration. RELIEF SOUGHT FROM THE SUPREME COURT Allow the appeal. [4] In an attempt to figure out, why from the perspective of the Appellant, the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is worthy of an appeal, I have sought to be guided by the Appellant's Memorandum of Appeal only to realise, that the Memorandum of Appeal cannot assist with this exercise. [5] Having read the Memorandum of Appeal, I am of the opinion, that the purported grounds of appeal are not grounds of appeal that are worthy of consideration. This is because the Memorandum of Appeal has not been drafted compliant with Rule 12 of the Appeal Rules. (SI 11 of 1961) ("the Rules") that reads as follows; "(12) The Memorandum of Appeal shall contain a concise statement in numbered paragraphs of point or points on which the Judgment is alleged to be erroneous without argumentor narrative and a concise prayerfor the relief claimed". [6] Therefore, based on the provisions of the Rules, the use of the word "shall" makes is mandatory for the Memorandum of Appeal to, 1. "Contain a concise statement in numbered paragraph of the point or points on which the Judgment is alleged to be erroneous. 2. Based on the provisions of the Rules, the Memorandum of Appeal should be "without argument or narrative and a concise prayer for the relief claimed" [7] In contravention of the Rules, the Memorandum of Appeal contains arguments and narrative purported to be grounds of appeal. In fact, it is not even known what the relief being sought for by the Appellant is, the Appellant having simply said "Allow the appeal", far from what is required by Rule 12 which states the requirement to be "a concise prayer for the relief claimed". [8] I am somewhat perplexed by the fact that leamed counsel for the Respondent did not raise a preliminary objection to the purported appeal on the ground that the Memorandum of Appeal is not in compliance with Rule 12 of the Appeal Rules. Nonetheless, within the scope of the COUl1's duty to act fairly, this Court cannot ignore such a fundamental breach of the rules since to do so would mean a failure to act fairly or to en in law (see Banane v Lefevre [1986] SLR 110). [9] Furthermore, without any ground of appeal 111 law, this purported appeal cannot be determined. [10] In Ayoud Salameh v NOl1h Island Company Limited SCA 512022 (Appeal arising from CA 23/2021 SCSC 34/2021) the COUl1of Appeal was required to decide whether to agree or disagree with leamed counsel for the Respondent who had raised a preliminary objection sUPP0l1edby case law authorities, to the effect that all the grounds of Appeal as drafted by the Appellant were contrary to Rule 18 (7) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2005 in that they were vague. The COUl1of Appeal struck out the Notice of Appeal and upheld file Order of the Supreme COUl1for the reason that it found that the grounds of appeal were poorly drafted and contravened the rules. [11] Similarly, in the instant case, the grounds of Appeal in the Memorandum of Appeal have been poorly drafted and contravene the provisions of Rule 12 of the Appeal Rules under the Courts Act. In the circumstances, the Notice of Appeal is shuck out and the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in ET 23/2021 is upheld. Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du POl1on 21 February 2025 4