Alain St Ange v/s Seychelles government case |21 November 2019

Government to consider an appeal

The government is considering an appeal against the judgment holding it liable for negligence in the case where former tourism minister Alain St Ange has won his case against the government over the withdrawal of his candidacy for the post of UNWTO secretary general.

Chinnasamy Jayaraj, the principal State Counsel who represented the government in the case, argued that in its judgment, Judge Melchior Vidot stated that there was no evidence that the withdrawal was done in bad faith as averred by the plaintiff as throughout his campaign until such time that the endorsement was withdrawn, the plaintiff enjoyed considerable support from the defendant and therefore there was no negligence.

The judge also stated clearly that “even after the withdrawal, there is not any indication that there was bad faith on behalf of the defendant”.

The judge also stated that the defendant was willing to support the plaintiff despite being fully aware that the national interest could be hurt and both parties knew full well of the consequences to the national interest while at the same time being aware that both would have benefitted had the plaintiff been elected to the post. In view of the fact that the withdrawal was due to threats of sanctions imposed by the AU, so there is no negligence.

Mr Jayaraj argued that while clearly stating all the above reasons to support the fact that there was no bad faith, the judge said the defendant knowingly did an act that constituted a faute, while aware of the injury that could be caused to the plaintiff, that due diligence should have been performed prior to the public endorsement of the plaintiff’s candidature and in that regard the defendant was clearly negligent.

“If the government had advised Mr St Ange that if the threats of sanctions became real, the support will be withdrawn, the former would not have been liable”.

He said the Attorney General will seriously consider its appeal which he has 30 days to file.

It is to be recalled that Mr St Ange has said he would appeal against the quantum of damages only as he feels that the Supreme Court’s decision to award him only R164,396.31 does not reflect his expenses, pain, humiliation and psychological damage endured.

Mr Jayaraj noted that originally Mr St Ange had claimed damages from the government amounting to the sum of R21,257,095.

He explained that in its judgment the judge has detailed the damages awarded to the plaintiff as follows: R70, 000 for inconvenience, stress and embarrassment, no evidence to establish humiliation, psychological, emotional pain and suffering.

R33,586.00 was awarded for airfares, R8,561.15 for telephone bills and R52,249.16 for hotel and other travel and incidental expenses.

Meanwhile Mr Jayaraj has said it is not in the interest of the government to sue the AU which forced it to withdraw Mr St Ange’s candidature as well as against the Court’s decision so as to prevent Mr St Ange from filing an appeal against quantum.

Marie-Anne Lepathy