1. Known to Arabs and Malays in early times, Mauritius was discovered uninhabited by the Portuguese in 1511 and settled by the Dutch in 1638. They abandoned it in 1710 after exploiting its natural resources. See Barnwell, P. J. and Toussaint, A., A Short History of Mauritius (1949) and Rivière, L., Historical Dictionary of Mauritius (1982).Google Scholar

2. Mauritius was under British military administration from 1810 until it was ceded to Britain by France by the Treaty of Paris 1814; see the next footnote.

3. The continuance of French law is said to be based on a British undertaking to preserve “Religion, Laws and Customs” in the Capitulation on the capture of Mauritius in 1810: see Acte de Capitulation de l'lle de France, 3 12 1810, Art.8, reproduced in D. Napal, Les Constitutions de L'lle Maurice (1962), p.79.Google Scholar Also see Angelo, A. H., “Mauritius: The Basis of the Legal System” (1970) 3 Comp. & Int. LJ. of Southern Africa 228.Google Scholar Capitulations are agreements between opposed armed forces and the competence to make them does not extend to political matters which, if included, require ratification by the victor see Lawrence, T. J., Principles of International Law (4th edn, 1910), pp.562–563. The undertaking in Art.8 was not ratified by the Treaty of Paris 1814 which ceded Mauritius to Britain “in full right and sovereignty”: Art. VIII, British & Foreign State Papers, Vol.1, Part I, p.160. The better view is that French law was allowed to remain in force “partly due to a misconception of the legal implications of the … Capitulation, and in greater measure to British liberality”: Neerunjun CJ in his Foreword to [1961] Mauritius Reports, p.III. By the mid-19th century it was acknowledged that “Mauritius is governed by the French law, as settled by the Code Civile”: Lang & Co. v. Reid & Co. (1858) 12 Moo.P.C. 72, 88.Google Scholar

4. See Neerunjun, ibid; Angelo, ibid; and Neville Brown, L., “Mauritius: Mixed Laws in a Mini-Jurisdiction”, in Örücü, E., Attwooll, A. and Coyle, S. (Eds), Studies in Legal Systems: Mixed and Mixing (1996), pp.210–214, 218.Google Scholar

5. H. P. Glenn, “Quebec: Mixité and Monism”, in Örücü et al., idem, p.5.

6. See de Smith, S. A., “Mauritius: Constitutionalism in a Plural Society” (1968) 31 M.L.R. 601 and Brown, idem, pp.215–216.Google Scholar

7. Replacing the former Cour d'Appel; see Order in Council Confirming Ordinance No.2 of 1850 providing that the Cour D'Appel shall be called the Supreme Court of Mauritius: Statutory Rules & Orders and Statutory Instruments Revised (1951), Vol.XIII, p.297.Google ScholarAlso see the Courts Ordinance 1945 (Cap.168), s.15, reproduced in A Consolidated Version of the Statutes in Force in Mauritius as at 31 12 1971, Vol. 1, p.519. On the court system, see Brown, idem, pp.216–217.Google Scholar

8. On this aspect of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, see J. Colom, La Justice Constitutionnelle dans les Ètats du Nouveau Commonwealth: Le Cas de l'lle Maurice (1994).

9. The Mauritius Reports (M.R.) have been published since 1861. Other published sources of Mauritian case law are Law Reports of the Commonwealth (L.R.C.) and the judgments of the Judicial Committee in Appeal Cases and elsewhere. Mauritian cases are also accessible in Supreme Court Judgments (S.CJ.) compiled by the Court itself.

10. The specific grounds of judicial review will be the subject of a later study.

11. 1968, c.8, s.1.Google Scholar

12. S.I. 1968(I) No.1871; the Constitution was scheduled to the OrderGoogle Scholar.

13. Act No.48 of 1991.Google Scholar

14. idem, s.2.

15. Since 1831; see Order in Council, dated 31 01 1831, Making Better Provision for the Administration of Justice in Mauritius: Statutory Rules ' Orders, op. cit. supra n.7, at p.293.Google ScholarAlso see D'Orliac v. D'Orliac (1844) 4 Moo.P.C. 374Google Scholar.

16. Constitution, s.81. Since republican Mauritius could no longer appeal to Her Majesty in Council, s.2(l) of the Mauritius Republic Act 1992 (UK) authorises Her Majesty in Council to make an Order conferring on the Judicial Committee “such jurisdiction and powers as may be appropriate in cases in which provision is made by the law of Mauritius for appeals to the Committee from courts of Mauritius”. The Mauritius Appeals to Judicial Committee Order (S.I. 1992 No.1716) was made under that authority.

17. Constitution, s.2. See Esther v. Prime Minister [1985] L.R.C.(Const) 429, 432 (per Espitalier-Noel and Lallan JJ).Google Scholar

18. Ss.83 and 84 respectively.

19. Duval v. District Magistrate of Flacq [1990] M.R. 125, 127 (per Lallah SPJ).Google Scholar

20. Including Mauritius: see the Mauritius (Legislative Council) Order in Council 1947 s.23: Statutory Rules & Orders, op. cit. supra n.7, at p.286.Google Scholar

21. It was mentioned, in passing, in Mathoorasing v. Governor-General [1973] M.R. 156, 173 (per Ramphul J) in the context of the powers of the Governor-General in a public emergency.Google Scholar

22. See Bridge, John W., “The Legislative Competence of the New Zealand Parliament” “1969” Public Law 112, 127–129.Google Scholar

23. Ibralebbe v. R. [1964] A.C. 900, 923 (per Lord Radcliffe).Google Scholar

24. Motee v. The Queen [1969] M.R. 34, 39 (per Rivalland CJ).Google Scholar

25. S.45(l). Also see Boolel, V., “The Influence of the European Convention on the Constitutional Law of Mauritius” [1996] E.H.R.L.Rev. 159.Google Scholar

26. S.46 (ordinary legislation); s.47 (alteration of the Constitution).

27. See Berenger v. Governor-General [1973] M.R. 215Google Scholar; Lincoln v. Governor-General [1974] M.R. 112.Google Scholar

28. Vallet v. Ramgoolam [1913] M.R. 29.Google Scholar

29. Idem, p.41 (per Garrioch SPJ).

30. Lincoln v. Governor-General [1974] M.R. 112, 126 (per Ramphul J).Google Scholar

31. The Union of Campement Sites v. Government of Mauritius [1984] M.R. 100, 107 (per Lallan ACJ). Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution itself, s. 111(2) makes its interpretation subject to the Interpretation Act 1889 (UK).Google Scholar

32. S.76(1).

33. [1982] M.R. 232.Google Scholar

34. Revision of Laws (Amendment) Act 1981 (No.27 of 1981), s.7(2) and Sched. 2.

35. Supra n.33, at p.234.Google Scholar

36. S.80. The Courts of Appeal are divisions of the Supreme Court. See Brown, , op. cit.supra n.4 at p.217.Google Scholar

37. S.17(2).

38. Viz. the magistrates' courts, the intermediate criminal court and the industrial court; see Angelo, , op. cit. supra n.3, at pp.234–236Google Scholar and Brown, , op. cit. supra n.4, at pp.217, 218.Google Scholar

39. S.82(l). See Director of Public Prosecutions v. Magistrates of the Intermediate Court [1984Google Scholar] M.R. 36 and Duval, supra n.19, at pp.126–127 (per Lallan SPJ).Google Scholar

40. See s.82(2).

41. See s.84(2).

42. S.119.

43. Such provision is made in respect of the following functions: the Attorney-General's regarding questions of membership of the National Assembly, s.37(7); the Police Commissioner's regarding the use and operational control of the police force, s.71(4); and those of commissions and tribunals established by or under the Constitution, s.118(4), (7).

44. S.119, emphasis added.

45. Lincoln v. Governor-General [1973] M.R. 290, 291 (per Rault J).Google Scholar

46. [1974] M.R. 112, 125 (per Ramphul J).Google Scholar

47. Berenger, supra n.27, at p.223.Google Scholar

48. See Vallet v.Ramgoolam [1973] M.R.29Google Scholar; Mahboobv.Government of Mauritius [1981] M.R. 135Google Scholar; Noordally v. Attorney-General [1987] L.R.C.(Const) 599.Google Scholar

49. Judgment of 11 12 1995, LEXIS Transcript (ENGGEN Library).Google Scholar

50. Idem, at screen 16.

51. Ibid (per Hardie Boys J).

52. Idem, at screen 18.

53. Yarriah v. Public Service Commission [1974] M.R. 22Google Scholar and [1978] MR. 57.Google Scholar

54. Idem, [1974] M.R., pp.25–26 (per Latour-Adrien CJ).

55. Idem, [1978] M.R., p.61 (per Garrioch CJ).

56. Permal v. Ilois Trust Fund [1985] L.R.C.(Const) 514, 518–519Google Scholar (per Lallan J) and Ilois Trust Fund v. Permal [1986] L.R.C.(Const) 227, 233–234Google Scholar (per Moollan CJ). Also see Mathoora v. Public Service Commission [1985] M.R. 26, 27 (per Glover SPJ).Google Scholar

57. Police v. Moorba [1971] M.R. 199, 202 (per Latour-Adrien CJ).Google Scholar

58. Dookhy v. Passport Immigration Officer [1987] M.R. 75, 78 (per Lallan ASPJ).Google Scholar

59. See Vallet v. Ramgoolam [1973] M.R. 29Google Scholar; Société United Docks v. Government of Mauritius [1985] L.R.C.(Const) 801.Google Scholar

60. See supra n.31 and associated text.

61. Moodoo v. Coowar [1971] M.R. 245, 247–248 (per Garrioch SPJ).Google Scholar

62. Norton v. Public Service Commission [1986] L.R.C.(Const) 828, 836 (per Ahnee J), expressly confirmed on appeal by the Judicial Committee: [1985] M.R. 108, 111.Google Scholar

63. Vallet v. Ramgoolam [1973] M.R. 29, 33.Google Scholar

64. Berenger v. Goburdhun [1986] L.R.C.(Const) 707, 711.Google Scholar

65. Vallet, supra n.63, at p.33 (per Garrioch SPJ).Google Scholar

66. Idem, p.34. Cited with approval in Noordally, supra n.48, at pp.605–606 (per Moollan CJ).Google Scholar

67. Berenger, supra n.64, at p.712Google Scholar (per Glover ACJ). In another area of Mauritian law, the Supreme Court has also demonstrated that it will not be automatically bound by French case law; see Brown, , op. cit. supra n.4, at p.212.Google Scholar

68. Central Electricity Board v. Forget [1974] M.R. 299, 301 (per Garrioch SPJ). Also see infra n.78 and associated text.Google Scholar

69. Vallet, supra n.63.

70. See Savanne Bus Service v. Road Traffic Licensing Authority [1976] M.R. 30, 30–31Google Scholar; Monty v. Public Service Commission [1981] M.R. 244, 246Google Scholar; Magistrates of the Intermediate Court, supra n.39, at p.38.Google Scholar

71. Murdaye v. Commissioner of Police [1984] M.R. 118, 119 (per Lallah ACJ).Google Scholar

72. Monty, supra n.70, at pp.248–249.Google Scholar

73. Berenger, supra n.64.

74. See Transport & General Workers Union v. Industrial Relations Commissioner [1975] M.R.150, 151 (per Garrioch SPJ).Google Scholar

75. See Société R. Ramdin & Co. v. The Tea Board [1979] M.R. 118, 123 (per Glover J).Google Scholar

76. Berenger, supra n.64, at p.712.Google Scholar

77. Supra n.57, at p. 202.Google Scholar

78. [1977] M.R. 83, 84–85Google Scholar. The Court agreed on the outcome, Garrioch SPJ relying on the English rule: idem, pp.86–87. Also see infra n.120.

79. Sees.82.

80. Supra n.75.

81. [1987] L.R.C.(Const) 754 (Supreme Court)Google Scholar; [1986] M.R. 74 (Judicial Committee).Google Scholar

82. S.8(l)(c)(ii).

83. Land Acquisition (Appeal) Rules 1974.

84. Supra n.81, at p.758 (per Moollan CJ). Also see idem, pp.761–762.Google Scholar

85. Idem, p.763.

86. Idem, p.764.

87. [1986] M.R. 74, 77 (per Lord Bridge).Google Scholar

88. [1981] M.R. 62.Google Scholar

89. Idem, pp.63–64 (per Lallah J). Also see Chienen v. Public Service Commission [1981] M.R. 430, 432 (per Lallah J).Google Scholar

90. [1983] 2 A.C. 237.Google Scholar

91. [1977] M.R. 359 (per Glover J).Google Scholar

92. Gowrisunkur v. Mauritius Family Planning Association [1980] M.R. 112.Google Scholar

93. Idem (per Rault CJ).

94. Idem, p.113.

95. 1983 S.CJ. 267 (unrep.)Google Scholar; cited in Augustave v. Mauritius Sugar Terminal Corporation [1990] M.R. 222, 227.Google Scholar

96. See further infra.

97. See supra n.95. The question of appropriate procedure was raised but not pursued in Mathoora v. Public Service Commission and Establishment Secretary [1985] M.R. 26, 27.Google Scholar

98. Augustave, supra n.95, at p.224.Google Scholar

99. Ibid.

100. [1984] 3 All E.R. 425.Google Scholar

101. Augustave, supra n.95, at pp.224–225.Google Scholar

102. [1984] 3 All E.R. 854.Google Scholar

103. Augustave, supra n.95, at p.226.Google Scholar

104. Ibid.

105. [1987] 2 W.L.R. 699.Google Scholar

106. Augustave, supra n.95, at p.227.Google Scholar

107. Ibid.

108. See supra n.95 and associated text.

109. Augustave, supra n.95, at pp.227–228 (per Glover CJ). For an application of these principles see Koo Tze Mew v. Mauritius Basketball Federation [1993] M.R. 367.Google Scholar

110. Permal v. Ilois Trust Fund [1985] L.R.C.(Const) 514, 519 (per Lallah J).Google Scholar

111. See Magistrates of the Intermediate Court, supra n.39, at p38 (per Glover SPJ, who criticised the applicant for failing to follow English practice when applying for leave to seek judicial review).

112. [1979] M.R. 118.Google Scholar

113. Idem, p.120 (per Glover J).

114. Idem, p.122.

115. Idem, p.123, citing R. v. Kent Justices, ex p. Smith [1928] W.N. 137 and R. v. Stokesley Justices, ex p. Bartram [1956] 1 W.L.R. 254.Google Scholar English courts continue to be reluctant to order cross-examination unless justice so demands: see R. v. Kensington & Chelsea & Westminster Family Practitioner Committee, ex p. Roy [1992] 1 A.C. 624, 647 (per Lord Lowry).Google Scholar

116. Savanne Bus Service, supra n.70, at p.31 (per Garrioch SPJ).Google Scholar

117. Idem, p.32.

118. Ibid.

119. Mon Loisir Sugar Estate Co. Ltd v. District Council of Pamplemousses [1983] M.R. 183, 186 (per Lallan J).Google Scholar

120. See Ex p. Jhurry [1977] M.R. 359 (per Glover J)Google Scholar; Transport Employees Union v. Permanent Arbitration Tribunal [1977] M.R. 83, 86–87Google Scholar (per Garrioch SPJ). In the latter case, Rault J, at 84–86, sought to apply the rules of the Code Civil relating to time bars on the ground that they are part of Mauritian law. He did not explain why the rules of civil procedure should be applicable to judicial review. He made no reference to the rules governing délai in French administrative law; as to which see Huglo, C. and Lepage-Jessua, C., Code des Procedures Administratives Contentieuses (1990), pp.116–138.Google Scholar

121. See supra n.73 and associated text.

122. RSC (Amendment No.4) 1980, S.I. 1980 No.2000, r.3, as amended by RSC (Amendment) 1987, S.I. 1987 No.1423, r.63 and Sched.

123. The wording of s.31(6) was originally that of Ord.53, r.4(l); see RSC (Amendment No.3) 1977, S.1.1977, No.1955.Google Scholar

124. See Aldous, G. and Alder, J., Applications for Judicial Review (2nd edn, 1993), chap.12.Google Scholar

125. [1981] M.R. 244.Google Scholar

126. Idem, p.245.

127. Idem, p.246.

128. Idem, p.2A7.

129. Idem pp.248–249.

130. Caswelt v. Dairy Produce Quota Tribunal [1990] 2 A.C. 738, 747.Google Scholar

131. [1984] M.R. 118.Google Scholar

132. Idem, p.119.

133. There is no evidence in the judgment that reference was being made to s.31(6).

134. [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1319.Google Scholar

135. Magistrates of the Intermediate Court, supra n.39, at p.38 (per Glover SPJ).Google ScholarAlso see Permal v. Ilois Trust Fund [1985] L.R.C.(Const) 514, 519 (per Lallan J).Google Scholar

136. R. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] A.C. 617.Google Scholar

137. The case law and the arguments are surveyed by the Law Commission in Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals (Consultation Paper No.126, 1993), paras.9.1–9.28.

138. Wade, H. W. R., Administrative Law (7th edn, 1994), p.709.Google Scholar

139. Aldous and Alder, op. cit. supra n.124, at p. 102.Google Scholar

140. Supra n.136.

141. [1986] L.R.C.(Const) 707.Google Scholar

142. Idem, p.711 (per Glover ACJ).

143. Idem, p.712.

144. Ibid.

145. See R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p. Rose Theatre Trust Co. [1990] 1 Q.B.504Google Scholar; R.v. Secretary of State for Social Services, ex p. Child Poverty Action Group [1990] 2 Q.B.Google Scholar. Judicial review at the suit of public interest bodies is a relatively new phenomenon in English law. Recourse to standing at the hearing stage in such cases may simply reflect caution and uncertainty on the part of the courts.Google Scholar

146. [1992] MR. 231.Google Scholar

147. Idem, p.232.

148. Ibid.

149. Idem, pp.232–233. quoting from the 6th edn, pp.702–703.

150. Idem, p.233.

151. The case is cited but only as authority for following English rules in the absence of Mauritian alternatives: idem, p.232.

152. [1973] M.R. 29.Google Scholar

153. Idem, p.34 (per Garrioch SPJ).

154. Transport & General Workers, supra n.74, at p.151. Non-binding decisions will, however, be quashed when they affect the rights of interested parties: idem, p.155.

155. See Aldous and Alder, op. cit. supra n.124, at p.127.Google Scholar

156. See supra n.144 and associated text.

157. Supra n.141, at p.714 (per Glover ACJ).

158. [1982] 3 All E.R. 141.Google Scholar

159. Idem, p.148 (per Lord Bridge).

160. Idem, p. 155 (per Lord Brightman).

161. Lords Hailsham, Fraser, Roskill and Bridge agreed with the course of action proposed by Lord Brightman: idem, pp.155–156.

162. [1973] M.R. 156.Google Scholar

163. Idem, pp.161–162 (per Garrioch SPJ).

164. Ningkhan v. Government of Malaysia [1970] A.G 379, 390.Google Scholar

165. Supra n.162, at pp.162–163 (per Garrioch SPJ).Google Scholar

166. Esther v. Prime Minister [1985] L.R.C.(Const) 429,435 (per Espitalier-Noel and Lallah JJ). The context was citizenship and the Court cited a number of English cases indicating judicial reluctance to interfere in such matters: idem, p. 436.Google Scholar

167. Leckning v. Governor-General [1975] M.R. 134.Google Scholar

168. S.64(3) in the original text of the Constitution.

169. S.83(l).

170. [1975] M.R. 134, 135.Google ScholarThe case is reported at [1969] 2 A.C. 147.Google Scholar

171. [1975] M.R. 134, 137 (per Garrioch ACJ). This decision is in effect an application of the doctrine that constitutional conventions incorporated in constitutional texts may be made non-justiciable: idem, p. 135.Google Scholar

172. [1985] L.R.C.(Const) 429.Google Scholar

173. Mauritius Citizenship Act 1968, S.17(2).

174. Esther, loc cil supra n.166.

175. Idem, pp.435–436.

176. Judicial Review of Administrative Action (4th edn, 1980), pp.370–371. Also see supra n.168.Google Scholar

177. Milbert, M. J.Voyage pitroresque 'Ile de France (1812), Vol.11, p.195.Google Scholar

178. See Örücü, E., “A Theoretical Framework for Transfrontier Mobility of Law”, in Jagtenberg, R., de Roo, A. J. and Orücü, E.; (Eds), Transfrontier Mobility of Law (1995), pp.5–13.Google Scholar

179. Idem. p.10.

180. Goldberg, D. and Attwooll, E., “Legal Orders, Systemic Relationships and Cultural Characteristics: Towards Spectral Jurisprudence”, in Örücü et al., op. cit. supra n.4, at p.329.Google Scholar

181. Ibid.

182. See Report of the Committee on the Review of Legal Studies in Mauritius (1983), cited in Brown, op. cit. supra n.4, at p.220.Google Scholar

183. See Glenn, , op. cit. supra n.S, at pp.3–8, 9.Google Scholar

184. Cf. Quebec where there is an ongoing interaction between French and English law within the fields in which each is said to reign supreme: see Glenn, idem, pp. 10–12.

185. Cf. Örücü, E., “Mixed and Mixing Systems: A Conceptual Search”, in Örücü et al., op. cit supra n.4, esp. at pp.344–348.Google Scholar