Court of Appeal’s rulings in final sitting for the year |19 December 2023

Justices of the Court of Appeal during their last sitting yesterday

Lussel Labiche’s appeal against two counts of murder dismissed

• Trio win appeal in 10th Constitutional amendment case

The Court of Appeal yesterday dismissed an application for appeal against two counts of murder by Lussel Labiche, the first appellant in the death of Sherleytine Ernesta, 21, whose body was discovered in the woods in upper Bougainville on May 4, 2022.

Also the Seychelles Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman and the Bar Association of Seychelles won their appeal for an application for special leave to appeal the ruling of the Constitutional Court of January 24, 2023. The case relates to the 10th Constitutional amendment.

These were two out of 24 appeals against sentences and convictions in murder, drug, civil matters and constitutional matters heard by the Court of Appeal since December 4, 2023. The cases were presided over by six justices of appeal, namely Justice Anthony Fernando (president), Justice Mathilda Twomey-Woods, Justice Fiona Robinson, Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Justice Karuna Gunesh-Balaghee and Justice Janak De Silva.

Labiche, 45, had submitted his appeal on the grounds that the sentences meted out to him were harsh. The Court of Appeal maintained the sentences stating: “This was a callous, calculated and brutal murder of a very young and vulnerable woman whose only mistake was to love a sexual predator who was more than twice her age. He stated that he got tired of her. All he had to do was break up with her, not kill her. He merits and deserves the sentences handed down.”

Labiche’s convictions and sentence of life imprisonment for murder and 18 years concurrent imprisonment for conspiracy to murder were affirmed. The second accused, Ashten Elisabeth, who is serving the same prison sentence, withdrew her appeal.

The court also maintained a five-year prison sentence on Alexander Geers for the cultivation of a controlled drug but he had his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to traffic quashed and substituted with conviction for possession of a controlled drug only. For that, he was instead sentenced to a fine of R30,000 for possession of cannabis, a controlled drug. The fine is to be paid within 30 days of this sentence. Default of payment will result in a one-year prison sentence.

Mr Geers had appealed against the conviction and sentence after being charged with possession of a controlled drug with intent to traffic and against the sentence on conviction of cultivation of a controlled drug. Several materials and equipment which consisted of 49 cannabis plants, a fertiliser sprayer, an indoor sprinkler system, seedling pots, several big black pots, two gunny bags containing herbal materials and a packet of open manure, were found at the appellant’s premises in Bel Ombre.

Nigerian businessman Patrick Uwaoma, 58, also lost his appeal against his 30-year prison sentence for the importation of cocaine with a net weight of 4896.10 grammes.

Meanwhile, the Seychelles Human Rights Commission, the Ombudsman and the Bar Association of Seychelles won their appeal for an application for special leave to appeal from the ruling of the Constitutional Court of January 24, 2023. The case relates to the 10th Constitutional amendment.

It was found that the court by that ruling dismissed the notice of motion for the recusal of the honourable judges (“Notice of Motion”) pursuant to Rule 10 of the Guidelines of the Court of Appeal in Government of Seychelles & Anor v. Seychelles National Party & Ors, SCA 4 of 2014. The notice of motion was dismissed as it was held to be frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

The applicants sought leave of the Constitutional Court to appeal against the ruling. It was dismissed on the basis that the recusal application has nothing to do with the facts of the main case and therefore, is a separate and independent application in its own right. A direct appeal was held to be the proper remedy against the ruling. The learned principal state counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that this application should be dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that a direct appeal is available against the ruling. Secondly, it was submitted that the application for special leave does not meet the required test.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal stated that “while the ruling given in a Recusal Application is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 12(2)(a)(i) of the Courts Act, a leave to appeal application is the proper remedy against such order and so special leave to appeal is granted.”

Patrick Joubert