He avers that he was arrested and detained at the Police Station and interrogated in connection with a fire which occurred three days before near his residence. He gave statement to the police denying any involvement in the said incident, however he was detained. At the time of his arrest and while in detention he was not informed by the police of his constitutional rights. In the present case the State has failed to prove that the petitioner was arrested on “reasonable suspicion” of having committed the offence of arson. Secondly, the State has made a qualified admission that the petitioner was not produced before the court within 24 hours of his arrest as required by the Constitution. The reason given for such non compliance has not been set out in the defence or in any of the supporting affidavits. Taking both these contraventions into account, and on a consideration of the principles applicable to the awarding of damages in Public Law cases… I award a sum of R 10,000 as damages payable by the State to the petitioner, together with costs. V. Case 9/2001 Alfredo Hugo Kurt Leite Versus the Government of Seychelles , the Attorney General. Jurisdiction of the Court invoked under Art 46.1 claiming that a notice of intended acquisition served on him by 1st respondent to acquire part of his property amounts to a likely contravention of his right contained in article 26 of the Constitution. The “Acquisition of Land in the Public Interest Act” (1996) gives an aggrieved person the right to obtain a declaration from this Court as regards the Constitutionality of the intended acquisition. Respondent: The purpose of the proposed acquisition was stated as for “Housing development”. No hardship will be caused to the petitioner as the government proposes to acquire only 37.65 % of the property upon payment of full compensation leaving land to the petitioner more than sufficient…The Director of Housing Administration avers that the first phase is anticipated to begin in the last quarter of the year 2002 and the second phase after. The estimated cost of the project is R 10, 530 000. Hence on a consideration of all these circumstances, the State has discharge the burden of proving that the intended acquisition does not contravene the fundamental right to property guaranteed in article 26.1 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs. VI. Case 10/2001 Roy Nora Versus The Minister of Land Use and Habitat, The Attorney General. The petitioner has filed a motion for leave a petition out of time. Base on article 46.1 of the Constitution alleging a contravention of the right to property recognized in article 26.1 thereof. The grievance averred is against a notice of intended acquisition of a parcel of land belonging to the petitioner by the Minister of Land… under provisions of the Acquisition of Land in the Public Interest Act 1996.