On the 5th March 2008, Judge Perera dismissed a motion brought by Mr. Bernard Georges, lawyer for Ailee Development. Ailee development is the company which owns the Plantation Club Hotel. Georges had filed a motion earlier contesting the appointment of Ernst and Young as provisional liquidator to wind up the affairs of the company. Ernest and Young was appointed at the behest of the Seychelles Government. Judge Perera made the order ex parte, after the government filed for liquidation as a shareholder of the company owning 8 shares “sois disant” to “protect its interest” .
Georges had argued that according to Section 293 of the Companies Act, a corporate body cannot be appointed as liquidator. Perera ruled that Ernest and Young is not a company but is rather a partnership (partenaire en partage) and therefore the appointment is in order.
Le Nouveau Seychelles Weekly had raised doubt about the fitness and suitability of Ernst and Young to act as liquidator as the wife of the Governor of Central Bank and his brother in law are the representatives of the company locally. This presents a conflict of interest dilemma as the company may be subject to undue influence from the government and may not be able to act independently. The fate of the company has more or less been sealed with Perera's latest order and only a miracle will save it from being dissolved now. The outcome of the case is already a “fait accompli” since it has been the practice locally that what the government wants the government normally gets.
The fact that the company is facing the might of the government as a party to the litigation makes it impossible for it to survive the full scale legal onslaught. However, this may not augur well for other investors in the tourism industry as the government can close down a hotel and bankrupt a company overnight at a whim simply by refusing to renew a licence. The opposition has been calling for years to abandon the practice of issuing a licence to trade for a duration of 12 months only as this has led to abuse and victimization in many instances in the past for political or other reasons.
Ideally a Licence should be granted for life and should only be revoked once a condition of the license has been breached. Even then the party against whom an accusation of a breach of the condition of a license is levelled should be able to have a right to be heard and challenge the decision in a court of law. Only after due process of the law has been followed should the licence be revoked if there are grounds to do so.