Vijay Construction v/s EEEL | 06 November 2020
Notice of motion presented in Court of Appeal
A notice of motion in the case of Vijay Construction v/s Eastern European Engineering Limited (EEEL) was presented to the Justices of Appeal yesterday morning in the Court of Appeal.
A lawyer for Vijay Construction, Philippe Boullé, presented the notice of motion to Justice Anthony Fernando, Fiona Robinson and Oagile Dingake asking that the appellant be heard for orders in the following terms:
- declaring the judgments delivered in the appeal of the case on October 2, 2020 unconstitutional null and void,
- that this motion be heard as a matter of urgency,
- that the execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the judgments of the Court of Appeal be stayed pending the hearing of this motion under Rule 5 of the Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules.
Presentation of the notice of motion comes after the appeal by Vijay Construction was dismissed by the Seychelles' Court of Appeal on October 2, 2020.
The justices have set November 13 at 2pm to give a decision to hear the merits for rehearing the case.
Case of the Attorney General v/s the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC)
Yesterday in Court, the state counsel representing the Attorney General, Stefan Knights, was expected to make some new submissions in relation to the case of the Attorney General v/s the Truth, Reconciliation and National Unity Commission (TRNUC) whereby the former stated that the latter is overstepping its mandate when it decided in June this year to investigate the disappearance of two young soldiers on Assomption island in October 2018. The case was brought to the TRNUC by the families of the two young soldiers.
However, state counsel Knights did not do so. He informed Judge Gustave Dodin and lawyer for TRNUC, Karen Domingue, that he had just received a large batch of complaints from the TRNUC dating from 1993 which he has to go through before make any submissions on the case. The Judge has set a new date of November 30 at 2pm for him to make his submissions.
It is to be recalled that in June the Supreme Court granted the SPDF permission to file two petitions against the TRNUC for overstepping its mandate in its intention to investigate the case . The Attorney general stated then that this particular case does not fall under the TRNUC’s mandate which is officially specified as the period between 1977 to 1993.