NEWS AND PUBLICATIONS

1. M Dhoomun v The Local Government Service Commission and the District Council of Grand Port 2025 SCJ 289

Shafik appeared for the second Defendant, the District Council, in the above matter. Following a plea in limine litis raised by both Defendants, Plaintiff’s Counsel moved the Court to amend its Plaint with Summons, 15 years after lodging the initial plaint.

Counsel for the Defendants objected to the proposed amendment as it was intended to defeat the plea in limine litis. The Supreme Court upheld the objections raised and did not allow the Plaintiff to amend its Plaint with Summons.

2. Mukoon & Anor v Bhoyroo 2024 SCJ 492

Shafik appeared for the Applicants in a writ habere facias possessionem application. Senior Counsel for the Respondent raised preliminary objections in law, mainly that the Applicants, being married under the matrimonial regime of community of goods, did not have locus standi to enter the application in their own names and that the property belongs to “la communauté”.

The learned Judge set aside the objection and concurred with the Applicants that “la communauté” existing between spouses is not a legal entity and that, since the application is an acte conservatoire, either spouse could have entered the application.

3. Solar Centre (Mauritius) SFER LTD v Kureemun & Reneworld 2024 SCJ 466

Shafik appeared for the Defendants, where the Plaintiff claimed MUR 5,000,000 from both Defendants jointly and in solido, alleging that Defendant No. 1 breached his employment contract by working for a competitor (Defendant No. 2).

The Defendants successfully raised a plea in limine litis that, ex facie the Plaint with Summons, the Plaintiff breached “la règle de non-cumul”. The Supreme Court concurred that the alleged breaches by the ex-employee after his resignation, given the specific contractual clauses, amounted to breach of contract and not faute lourde. The objections were upheld and the Plaint with Summons was set aside.

4. New Mauritius Hotels Limited v J Prevaut 2023 SCJ 461

The Respondent (employee) claimed constructive dismissal when her employer unilaterally transferred her to another department with new hours of work as part of disciplinary action.

She claimed severance allowance on the ground that the transfer was a unilateral and substantial modification of her conditions of work. The Industrial Court found in her favor and ordered payment of severance allowance.

The Employer appealed to the Supreme Court on seven grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed all grounds and accepted Shafik’s submissions that the transfer, without the employee’s consent, was unilateral and that the Procedure Agreement between the Union of Employees and the Employer cannot be deemed to constitute the employee’s consent to modify her conditions of work.