Court of Appeal dismisses Durai Karunakaran’s appeal |03 May 2021

The Court of Appeal delivering the judgment (Photo: Thomas Meriton)

The Court of Appeal on Friday dismissed, with no order for costs, the appeal of Durai Karunakaran against a Constitutional Court judgment in a matter against the Attorney General, on the basis that the appeal is “without merit”.

Mr Karunakaran, who brought the appeal on numerous grounds, was appealing the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Karunakaran v Attorney General (2020), in which his petition to have the Constitutional Court declare that his right of Appeal has been violated, and that the judgment in Constitutional Appeal Karunakaran v/s The Attorney General, dated September 10, 2019 was unconstitutional null and void, was dismissed.

In the same matter before the Constitutional court, Mr Karunakaran was seeking redress under Article 130(1) of the Constitution, on grounds that the composition of the Court of Appeal bench that heard his unsuccessful appeal in Karunakaran v The Tribunal & Anor (2019), contravened the Seychelles Court of Appeal Rules as only two Justices of Appeal heard the appeal, instead of three, as allegedly required by the Court of Appeal Rules.

Justice of Appeal Oagile Dingake in delivering the judgment stated that most of the seven grounds relied upon by the appellant are without merit, including grounds 1 and 2 which proposed that the Constitutional court failed to apply relevant law and legal principle and that it erroneously departed from the preliminary objection.

Court found that ground 3 and 7 are also without merit, elaborating on the Court of Appeal Rules, rules pertaining to the qualification and appointment of Justices, Judges and Masters.

“It is our firm conclusion that none of the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Appellant has any merit,”.

“We are not persuaded to do as the Appeal raises constitutional issues of some significance and this court would be loath to order costs in this type of case which may have a chilling effect on potential litigants who may wish to approach the court to vindicate their constitutional rights. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs,” Justice Digake ordered.

Laura Pillay