Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Appellant, Steven Gonzalves, filed two judicial review applications (MC 63/2025 and MA 155/2025) against the Seychelles Investment Board, seeking orders of injunction, declaration, and certiorari. Both applications were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2025 for non-compliance with Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction) Rules 1995, as no certified copy of the decision sought to be reviewed was attached. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal as of right, arguing errors in the dismissal and violation of his right to a fair hearing. The Court of Appeal held that an appeal as of right does not lie against the refusal of leave to proceed with judicial review under Rule 8 of the Rules 1995, and that the Appellant’s case was based on a public announcement (not a valid decision) and procedural non-compliance. The appeal was dismissed as unarguable.
Issues
- The second issue involves determining if a public announcement by the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation regarding the re-tender of Plot B3 in the Victoria Waterfront Development qualifies as a 'decision' over which the Supreme Court may exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Rule 1(2) of The Rules 1995. The Court held that the announcement does not constitute a valid decision for judicial review purposes, as it lacks the formal requirements set by the Rules.
- The Court also examined whether the learned Judge was justified in refusing leave to proceed with judicial review. It was determined that the Appellant failed to exhibit a certified copy of the decision sought to be reviewed, as required by Rule 2(2) of The Rules 1995. The Court agreed with the learned Judge’s conclusion that the absence of such a decision rendered the Appellant’s case unarguable, thereby justifying the refusal of leave.
- This appeal addresses the jurisdictional question of whether the Court of Appeal can entertain an appeal as of right against an order refusing leave to proceed with judicial review under Rule 8 of The Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules 1995. The Court concluded that Rule 8 explicitly requires leave from the Supreme Court before an appeal to the Court of Appeal can proceed, and thus no appeal as of right exists in such circumstances.
Holdings
- The court determined that the learned Judge was correct in refusing leave to proceed with judicial review because the Appellant failed to comply with Rule 2(2) of the Rules 1995 by not attaching a certified copy of the decision sought to be challenged. The Appellant's case was based on a public announcement, which the court concluded does not constitute a valid decision for the purposes of judicial review.
- The Court of Appeal held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as of right against an order refusing leave to proceed with judicial review under Rule 8 of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction) Rules 1995. The court emphasized that Rule 8 explicitly requires the petitioner to first obtain leave from the Supreme Court to appeal such an order, and an appeal as of right under the Courts Act does not apply in this context.
Legal Principles
The Court of Appeal held that an appeal as of right does not lie against the refusal of leave to proceed with judicial review. Rule 8 of the Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction) Rules 1995 requires leave from the Supreme Court before appealing to the Court of Appeal. The court emphasized the two-stage judicial review process (leave and merits) and affirmed that the absence of a certified decision and non-compliance with procedural rules invalidates the application.
Precedent Name
- Bar Association of Seychelles v The Honourable Chief Justice and Others
- Braun v R
- Commonwealth v Kreglinger & Fernau Ltd
- Airtel (Seychelles) Ltd v Review Panel of the National Tender Board and another
- R v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex-parte Cheblak
- Eric Njue v R
- Karunakaran v Constitutional Appointment Authority
- Derrick Chitala v Attorney General
- Registrar of the Supreme Court v Public Service Appeals Board and others
- Gemuenden v Seychelles Investment Board
Cited Statute
- Courts Act [Cap 52]
- The Court of Appeal of Seychelles Rules 2023
- Supreme Court (Supervisory Jurisdiction over Subordinate Courts, Tribunals and Adjudicating Authorities) Rules 1995
Judge Name
- Robinson
- Fernando
- Sichinga
Passage Text
- [16] This Court relies on Rule 18 (8) of The Court of Appeal of Seychelles Rules 2023, as amended, to raise the jurisdictional issue, which stipulates — '(8) [n]otwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the Court in deciding the appeal shall not be confined to the ground set forth by the Appellant — Provided that the Court shall not, if it allows the appeal rest its decision on any ground not set forth by the Appellant unless the respondent has had sufficient opportunity of contesting the case on that ground.'
- [24] Based on Rule 8 of The Rules 1995 and the authorities cited above, we hold that an appeal as of right to this Court does not lie against the refusal of leave to proceed with judicial review. Rule 8 of The Rules 1995 provides that where leave to proceed with judicial review has been refused, the person seeking that leave to proceed may appeal to this Court, but subject to leave of the Supreme Court 'first had and received.'
- [30] We agree with the learned Judge's conclusion that there is no decision over which the Supreme Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, the learned Judge was correct in denying the Appellant leave to proceed with judicial review on this basis, among other things.