Anterior 3 / 10 Próximo

[6J The 3rd Respondent adopts the submission filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd Respondents. [7J This Court will first proceed to determine whether the Petition is time-barred. Objections/Submissions of the I" Respondents [8] The 1sr Respondent submits that under Rule 4 (1) of the Rules a petition must be brought within three months of the date of the alleged contravention and further the Petition is misconceived and unarguable against the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how the 1st Respondent has failed to safeguard the rights of the Petitioner under Article 22 of the Constitution. [9J The 1st Respondent submits that the Petitioner did not obtain leave of the Court to file a fresh petition out of time. The Petition was filed more than three months after the decision by the 3rd Respondent dated the 28th March 2022 and as there is no ongoing contravention as alleged by the Petitioner by the 1st Respondent, and as a result, the permission of court was required to proceed. [1OJ The 1st Respondent states that the decision that is under challenge in this petition is the censure of the Petitioner's live broadcast as communicated to them by the 3rd Respondent in the letter dated 28th March 2022. The attempt by the Petitioner to make this petition an ongoing contravention by the 1st Respondent is inherently weak on the merits. [11] The 1st Respondent further avers that the Petitioner first filed a defective petition without an affidavit in support on the 25th July 2022 and the Court suggested that the Petitioner withdraw the application and file a fresh application with an affidavit in support, to adhere with the Rules ofthe Court. [12] It is further averred that the Petitioner 'sat on its rights' when it failed to file a fresh petition immediately, nor did they seek the permission of this Court to file the revised petition out of time, as required under the rules of the court. The Petitioner also did not file a notice of motion with the petition to seek the permission of the Court to file the petition out of time and therefore the Court cannot grant the permission to file out of time to the Petitioner on its own accord. 3

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

United Seychelles v Republic and others [2023]

Case Law

Country

Seychelles

Country Location

Latitud: -4.679574

Longitud: 55.491977

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): Seychelles

Decision Date: 5 dic 2023

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Denied/Vacated

Keywords

Content Regulation / Censorship
Freedom of Expression

Court Name: Constitutional Court of Seychelles

Case Number: CP102022

Case Summary: Facts: United Seychelles (US), represented by Patrick Herminie, filed a Constitutional Petition against the Republic of Seychelles, the Attorney General, and the Seychelles Broadcasting Corporation (SBC). The petition, filed on 29th November 2022, alleged violations of Article 22 of the Constitution by the respondents, specifically accusing them of infringing on the petitioner's rights to freedom of opinion and expression. This was purportedly done through the removal of a press conference recording from digital platforms and the blurring of a banner entitled 'Tir li 2025' by the SBC. The petition sought various reliefs including declarations that the respondents' actions contravened the Constitution and orders to enforce the petitioner's fundamental rights.

Issue: The primary issue is whether the Constitutional Petition is time-barred, making it invalid, as the respondents claimed it was filed out of the required timeframe without obtaining leave from the court to proceed out of time.

Rule: According to the Constitutional Court (Application, Contravention, Enforcement, or Interpretation of the Constitution) Rules, a petition alleging a contravention of the Constitution must be filed within three months of the occurrence of the event leading to such an application. If a petition is filed out of this timeframe, the petitioner must seek and obtain leave from the court to file the petition late.

Analysis: The respondents argued that the petition was time-barred as it was filed several months after the alleged constitutional violations occurred (based on the censorship action dated 28th March 2022). Furthermore, the respondents contended that United Seychelles did not seek permission from the court to file the petition out of time, as required by the rules. The court agreed with the respondents, noting that the petition was indeed filed out of the prescribed timeframe without the necessary court permission. It also dismissed the petitioner's claim of ongoing violations, stating that the petition did not establish a continuous contravention that would justify extending the timeframe. Consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents about the petition being time-barred was sustained.

Conclusion: The court dismissed the Constitutional Petition as time-barred since it was filed outside the prescribed three-month period following the alleged constitutional contravention, and no leave to file out of time was sought or granted. The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules concerning the timeliness of petitions challenging constitutional violations. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

Case Significance

The significance of the case United Seychelles v. Republic of Seychelles & Others lies primarily in its reinforcement of procedural adherence in constitutional litigation, specifically regarding the timeliness of filing petitions. Here are some key aspects of the case's significance:

Strict Adherence to Timelines: The case underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines when filing constitutional petitions. It serves as a precedent that petitions filed outside the mandated time frame without the necessary judicial leave will be dismissed, emphasizing the judiciary's commitment to enforcing rules that promote judicial efficiency and discipline.
Legal Procedure for Late Filings: The ruling clarifies the procedure for parties wishing to file constitutional petitions after the standard deadline has passed. It highlights the necessity of obtaining leave from the court to proceed with a late filing, providing a clear procedural guideline for future litigants who might face similar circumstances.
Interpretation of Continuous Violation: The decision addresses the interpretation of what constitutes a "continuous violation" of rights, a concept that can extend the timeframe for filing petitions. In this case, the court found that the alleged violations were not continuous, thereby not warranting an extension of the filing deadline. This interpretation helps in setting boundaries for what qualifies as ongoing harm and impacts how rights are safeguarded under the law.
Separation of Powers and Administrative Function: By dismissing the petition based on an administrative rule violation, the court reinforces the separation of powers, showing that all branches of government must respect legal processes. It delineates the boundaries within which legal and constitutional disputes are to be handled, respecting the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying the law.

Related Law

The Seychelles Constitution

Source Name and URL: SEYLII

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 6 may 2024

Documentos primarios

05122023_CP10_2022_UNITED_SEYCHELLES_VS_THE_REPUBLIC_OF_SEYCHELLES_AND_OTHERS.pdf
English
Descargar Ver

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

United Seychelles v Republic and others [2023]

Documentos primarios

Notificaciones