Enforcement of Judgments 2026 Comparisons

Mauritian law provides several avenues through which a party may ascertain the asset position of another party, whether by way of court-ordered disclosure or through searches of public records.

Asset Disclosure Orders

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to make asset disclosure orders, typically in conjunction with a freezing injunction. Under such an order, a party may be compelled to disclose details of all assets owned by it, whether situated in Mauritius or abroad. This power has been recognised in Appavoo v Buttie [2016] SCJ 118 and Barclays Bank Mauritius v Karamuth [2017] SCJ 313, among other cases.

Non-compliance with a disclosure order amounts to contempt of court and may attract sanctions, including a fine or imprisonment.

Norwich Pharmacal Orders

Following the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Stanford Asset Holdings v AfrAsia Bank Ltd [2023] UKPC 35, it is now settled that the Supreme Court of Mauritius has equitable jurisdiction to grant Norwich Pharmacal orders, whether as standalone relief or ancillary to a freezing order. Such orders compel third parties who have become involved in wrongdoing (banks or other intermediaries, for instance) to disclose information that may assist in identifying assets or tracing funds.

Anton Piller Orders

Although resorted to less frequently, the Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to grant Anton Piller (search and seizure) orders. These may assist in preserving and securing evidence that is relevant to the identification or tracing of assets.

Publicly Available Information

Certain asset-related information is publicly accessible in Mauritius.

Conservator of Mortgages

Searches may be conducted at the Office of the Conservator of Mortgages to identify immovable property owned by a debtor in Mauritius, together with any mortgages, charges or other encumbrances affecting that property.

Registrar of Companies

Company records maintained by the Registrar of Companies may be inspected upon payment of the prescribed fee (and, where required, with the Registrar’s permission). These records can reveal shareholding, registered office details, directors and officers, and corporate filings relevant to asset investigations.

Judgments of the Supreme Court

A Judge of the Supreme Court may deliver several types of judgments, including:

• Judgment in Default – delivered when the defendant fails to appear or defend the case, allowing the claimant to prove its claim in the defendant’s absence;
• Contradictory Judgment – rendered after both parties have been heard and their arguments considered;
• Interlocutory Judgment – issued at an intermediate stage of proceedings, often following submissions on particulars or on a preliminary point of law (plea in limine litis);
• Declaratory Judgment – determines and clarifies the rights, status or legal position of the parties without necessarily granting any specific remedy; and
• Winding-Up Order – made in proceedings relating to the liquidation or dissolution of a company.

Judgments of the Lower Courts

Magistrates sitting in the District Courts or Intermediate Court may deliver:

• Judgments in Default, where a party succeeds by reason of the opposing party’s failure to appear or to contest the matter;
• Contradictory Judgments, following a hearing in which both parties are represented and heard; and
• Declaratory Judgments, which formally determine the rights or legal status of the parties.

Orders Issued by a Judge Sitting in Chambers

When exercising jurisdiction in Chambers, a Judge may grant a range of interim and procedural remedies, including:

• Interim Injunctions – temporary orders directed at preserving the status quo pending the determination of the case;
• Interlocutory Orders – orders made in the course of proceedings to regulate or facilitate the conduct of the case;
• Attachment Orders – orders directing the seizure or preservation of property in specified circumstances; and
• Writ of Habere Facias Possessionem – an order authorising the eviction of unlawful occupiers and restoring possession to the party lawfully entitled to it.

Consent Judgments and Settlements

A Judge sitting in Chambers, or the court, may record a settlement reached between the parties and formalise it in a judgment of the court, thereby rendering the agreement enforceable as a court judgment.

Seizure and Sale of Immovable and Movable Property

Immovable property

The seizure of immovable property must be preceded by a notice served personally on the judgment debtor, at least ten days beforehand. The notice must state that, on failure to satisfy the debt, the immovable property will be seized. Once the writ of execution has been issued, the usher proceeds to seize the property, and the subsequent procedure is governed by the Sale of Immovable Property Act 1864. Applications relating to the sale are heard before the Master and Registrar of the Supreme Court, irrespective of the value of the property, and notice must be given to the debtor and to any interested creditors. The immovable property is ultimately sold by public auction before the Master and Registrar of the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

Movable property

Where judgment is delivered by the Supreme Court, the successful party may apply to the Master and Registrar for a writ of execution. The Master and Registrar issues a warrant of execution against the movable and/or immovable property under the seal of the court, which is then executed by an usher.

Where a money judgment of the District Court or the Intermediate Court remains unpaid, the successful party may apply for a warrant of execution against the judgment debtor’s movable property. Once the warrant has been issued under the seal of the court, the usher is authorised to seize and sell all movable property, except that which is exempt by law (such as pensions, alimony, personal belongings and items required for the debtor’s work). The Magistrate may issue a writ of execution against the debtor’s immovable property where the proceeds of the movable property prove insufficient; movable property must, however, be seized before recourse may be had to immovable property.

Attachment

A judgment may be enforced by attaching funds or assets belonging to the judgment debtor that are held by a third party (the garnishee).

The process is initiated before the Judge in Chambers by way of a praecipe and affidavit. A provisional attachment order is first issued and served on the judgment debtor and the garnishee, following which an application to validate the attachment must be filed within eight days.

The garnishee is required to file an affidavit stating whether it is indebted to the judgment debtor. Where the garnishee confirms the debt (affirmative declaration), the attachment may be validated. Where it disputes the debt or asserts that a lesser sum is due, the Judge in Chambers will determine the issue and decide whether to validate the attachment.

Insolvency Proceedings

Statutory demand

Where the debt exceeds MUR250,000 (approximately USD5,300) and is owed by a company, the creditor may serve a statutory demand on the debtor. The statutory demand, issued in the prescribed form, affords the debtor – within one month of service, or such longer period as the court may order – the opportunity to pay the debt, to enter into a compromise or otherwise co-operate with the creditor, or to provide security for the debt by granting a charge over its property. A statutory demand may only be issued in respect of a debt that is certain, liquidated and due. Although it is an out-of-court procedure, the debtor may apply to the court to have the demand set aside. Strict time limits apply, and a failure to observe them may bar the debtor from challenging the demand, although the debtor may seek an extension of time from the court.

Winding-up proceedings

Where a company fails to comply with a statutory demand or a judgment requiring payment, the creditor may petition for its winding-up. Before the petition is presented, security for costs in the sum of MUR25,000 (approximately USD530) must be deposited. Once the petition is filed, the court orders that notice of it be published in two widely circulated daily newspapers and served on the respondent, so that the debtor and any interested creditors may file their respective positions. The debtor retains the right to oppose the petition.

Bankruptcy notice

Where an individual fails to satisfy a judgment debt exceeding MUR100,000, the creditor may serve a bankruptcy notice requiring payment within 14 days. If the debtor does not comply, a bankruptcy petition may be lodged within 42 days of service of the notice. The petition is filed before the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court and must be supported by an affidavit.

Time

Where enforcement is sought through the seizure and sale of movable property, the period between the application to the court and the eventual sale is typically around one year. The seizure and sale of immovable property will likewise generally take approximately one year, provided the application is not contested.

Insolvency and attachment proceedings generally take between six months and one year to complete.

Cost

Court and associated costs are usually minimal and would not exceed USD750. The bulk of costs borne by parties would be made up of counsel and attorney fees. Fees can range between USD2,000 and USD6,000 for claims up to MUR2.5 million (approximately USD53,000), but should be expected to be much higher for higher value claims (estimates of between 10% and 20% of the value of the claim).

Efficiency of Available Enforcement Methods

Insolvency proceedings are generally the most effective means of pressing a debtor to satisfy a judgment debt, since they may culminate in the winding-up of a company or the bankruptcy of an individual.

Attachment proceedings are particularly useful where there is a risk that assets may be disposed of before the debt is recovered. A provisional attachment order is usually granted shortly after the application is made and prevents the garnishee from dealing with the assets provisionally attached. Where there is a genuine risk of dissipation, the creditor may also seek a freezing order, which can be obtained rapidly given the urgency inherent in that type of relief.

The Judge in Chambers may grant asset disclosure orders requiring a debtor to disclose details of assets located in Mauritius or abroad; non-compliance may amount to contempt of court. The court may also issue Norwich Pharmacal orders compelling third parties, such as banks or other intermediaries, to provide information relevant to the identification and tracing of assets. In appropriate cases, freezing orders (Mareva injunctions) and Anton Piller orders may also assist in preserving assets and obtaining evidence relating to their location.

In addition, asset-related information may be obtained through public searches. Searches at the Office of the Conservator of Mortgages can reveal immovable property owned by a debtor and any mortgages, charges or encumbrances affecting it. Company records held by the Registrar of Companies may also be inspected and can provide information on shareholdings, directors, officers, registered offices and other corporate details relevant to asset investigations.

See 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position for more details.

A debtor may oppose winding-up proceedings on the ground that the applicable enforcement procedures have not been properly followed. Similarly, in attachment proceedings, enforcement may be challenged on the basis that the prescribed procedural time limits have not been observed.

In cases involving the seizure and sale of immovable property, the debtor may file an incidental application to contest the enforcement process. Such an application, which may rest on any valid ground, is brought by way of petition and served on the parties’ attorneys.

A defendant may also challenge enforcement by appealing against the judgment within 21 days of the date on which it is delivered. Once an appeal is lodged, enforcement of the judgment is stayed pending its determination.

A defendant may, alternatively, apply for a new trial. To succeed, the applicant must show that:

• fraud, violence or an error has occurred;
• new evidence has emerged that was unavailable or unknown at the time of the hearing; or
• a new trial is otherwise required in the interests of justice.

Such an application must be accompanied by a request for a stay of execution of the judgment.

In proceedings before the lower courts, an application for a new trial must be made within 15 days of the judgment if both parties were present when it was delivered. Where judgment was entered in default, the application must be made within 15 days of the execution of the judgment.

All judgments are capable of being enforced, but the period within which enforcement proceedings must be commenced varies according to both the nature of the judgment and the court that delivered it. A judgment obtained in the debtor’s absence remains enforceable only for six months from the date it is given. For judgments delivered after a contested hearing, the position turns on the court: judgments of the District and Intermediate Courts may be enforced within three years of delivery, while those of the Supreme Court may be enforced within ten years.

Judgments are available on the website of the Supreme Court of Mauritius. However, some judgments may not be reported or published.

The enforcement of foreign judgments in Mauritius is governed principally by the exequatur procedure under Article 546 of the Civil Procedure Code. Once a foreign judgment is granted exequatur by the Supreme Court of Mauritius, it may be enforced in the same manner as a Mauritian judgment.

A foreign judgment may only be enforced by way of exequatur where it is final, valid and capable of execution in the country where it was delivered. Exequatur is unavailable where the foreign judgment is subject to an appeal.

In addition, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1923 (REJA) provides a separate statutory regime for the enforcement of certain money judgments delivered by superior courts in the United Kingdom. However, in Dallah Albaraka (Ireland) Ltd v Pentasoft Technologies Ltd & Anor [2012] SCJ 463, the Supreme Court confirmed that a judgment creditor seeking to enforce a UK judgment may alternatively proceed by way of exequatur.

Mauritius is not a party to any international convention, treaty or arrangement concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Exequatur

Exequatur is available in respect of any type of relief, provided the applicable requirements are satisfied.

REJA

The regime under the REJA is considerably narrower, applying only to money judgments and judgments delivered by superior courts in the United Kingdom.

According to the principles established in D’Arifat v Lesueur [1949] MR 191, a foreign judgment will not be enforceable where:

• it has not been given on the merits of the case;
• it has been obtained by fraud; or
• it appears on the face of the proceedings to be grounded on an incorrect view of international law, or on a refusal to recognise Mauritian law where that law was applicable.

In addition, exequatur may only be granted if:

• the judgment remains valid and enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction;
• it is not contrary to Mauritian public policy;
• the defendant was properly summoned in accordance with the applicable procedural rules; and
• the foreign court had jurisdiction to determine the dispute.

REJA

Leave to seek recognition and enforcement under the REJA must generally be sought within 12 months of the date of the UK judgment. However, the Supreme Court of Mauritius has a discretionary power to extend that period where it considers it just and convenient to do so. Leave is sought either ex parte or by summons to a judge. Where the application is made ex parte, the judge may nonetheless direct that a summons be issued. Such summons must be supported by an affidavit of the facts, accompanied by the duly authenticated judgment.

Upon receiving the application, the Supreme Court fixes a period within which the judgment debtor may apply to set the registration aside. If no such application is made within that period, the judgment must be registered and will be declared executory in Mauritius.

Written notice of the registration must then be served on the judgment debtor within a reasonable time, stating the period within which the debtor may apply to have the registration set aside. Within three days of service, the party serving the notice must endorse on it (or on a copy) the day, week and month on which service was effected; the judgment creditor may not execute the judgment without such endorsement.

Once registered, the judgment carries the same force and effect as a judgment originally obtained on a claim brought before the Supreme Court.

Exequatur

To enforce a foreign judgment in Mauritius, a judgment creditor must file a motion paper before the Supreme Court of Mauritius, together with a supporting affidavit requesting an order to make the foreign judgment executory in Mauritius. The affidavit must be accompanied by a duly authenticated copy of the foreign judgment, evidence demonstrating that the judgment is final and that no appeal is pending, and a legal opinion from a lawyer qualified in the foreign jurisdiction. That legal opinion should:

• confirm that the judgment remains valid and enforceable in the country where it was rendered;
• identify any applicable limitation period for execution under the laws of that jurisdiction;
• confirm compliance with the foreign rules governing service of the proceedings; and
• explain the legal basis upon which the foreign court assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.

The requirement for a legal opinion arises because, under Mauritian law, foreign law is treated as a question of fact and must therefore be established through expert evidence. Where the respondent is a foreign entity, leave of the Mauritian court must first be obtained before the exequatur proceedings can be served outside Mauritius.

Once the application has been filed, the Supreme Court will generally allow the respondent up to two months to challenge the application. If no challenge is raised within that period, the foreign judgment may be registered and declared executory in Mauritius. Recognition and enforcement under the REJA must generally be sought within 12 months of the date of the judgment, although the Supreme Court has discretion to extend that period where it considers it just and convenient to do so. In the case of an English money judgment, a judgment creditor may elect to proceed either under the REJA or under Article 546 of the Code de Procédure Civile. The latter is often regarded as more favourable because it is not subject to any prescribed time limit, provided that the foreign judgment remains valid and capable of execution in the country where it was delivered.

Costs

Court and associated costs are usually minimal and would not exceed USD750. The bulk of costs borne by parties would be made up of counsel and attorney fees. Fees can range between USD2,000 and USD6,000 for lower value claims, but should be expected to be much higher for higher value claims (up to USD20,000–25,000).

Typical Timeframe

A period of roughly 24 months may be necessary to enforce a foreign judgment. This estimate includes the time needed to:

• seek exequatur;
• notify the defendant of the application;
• deal with any procedural challenges or objections raised by the defendant; and
• obtain a determination at the hearing.

Efficiency

The exequatur procedure may be regarded as the more efficient enforcement mechanism in Mauritius because it is not limited to a specific category of judgments or country of origin. Unlike the regime under the REJA, which applies only to certain money judgments issued by superior courts in the United Kingdom, exequatur is available for a wider range of foreign judgments and reliefs. It therefore offers greater flexibility and constitutes the principal mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Mauritius.

Exequatur

The grounds on which an application for exequatur may be opposed include the following.

• Finality of the foreign judgment:
1. whether the foreign judgment is final and enforceable in the jurisdiction where it was rendered;
2. whether the foreign judgment is subject to a pending appeal; and
3. whether the judgment debtor is entitled and intends to appeal against the foreign judgment.
• Jurisdiction:

1. whether the court that rendered the foreign judgment had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute; and
2. enforcement may be refused where the judgment debtor was neither carrying on business nor ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the foreign court and did not voluntarily appear, submit or agree to submit to the jurisdiction of that court.
• Invalid service and fair hearing:

1. whether the judgment debtor was effectively summoned before the foreign court and whether they were given a fair hearing.
• The basis on which the judgment was obtained:

1. whether the judgment was procured through fraudulent means.
• Public policy:

1. whether the judgment was in respect of a cause of action that for reasons of public policy or for some other similar reason could not have been entertained by the Supreme Court.

UK Judgment

Registration of a UK judgment must be refused in the following six situations:

• the original court lacked jurisdiction;
• the judgment debtor neither carried on business nor was ordinarily resident within that court’s jurisdiction and did not submit to it;
• the debtor was not duly served and did not appear (even if resident, carrying on business there, or having agreed to submit);
• the judgment was obtained by fraud;
• the debtor shows that an appeal is pending or intended; or
• the judgment concerned a cause of action that Mauritian public policy (or a similar reason) would not entertain.

Both domestic and foreign awards may be denied enforcement where they are found to be contrary to public order.

Foreign Awards

For foreign arbitral awards, enforcement can also be resisted if the party against whom the award is invoked establishes that it was not properly informed of either the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings, or if it was otherwise deprived of a reasonable opportunity to present its case. In assessing enforcement, the court does not, on its own initiative, examine whether service of the original arbitral proceedings was properly effected.

Domestic Awards

With respect to domestic awards, the enforcing court does not revisit issues relating to the service of the award or the conduct of the original proceedings. However, a domestic award may be set aside where the adversarial principle has not been observed. The adversarial principle mandates that both parties must have an equal opportunity to present their case, submit evidence and respond to the opposing side’s arguments, with the arbitrator adopting a passive stance.

Security for Costs

As a general rule of Mauritian procedure, security for costs may be sought where a foreign party that owns no immovable property in Mauritius initiates court proceedings here. In the international arbitration context, a party may also apply for security for costs where the arbitration agreement or the applicable arbitral rules so provide.

Before the Supreme Court, the position is governed by the International Arbitration Act Rules. The application must be supported by written evidence – ordinarily an affidavit or witness statement, together with supporting documents.

Under Rule 28(2), the court will order security for costs where, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is satisfied that such an order is warranted, and at least one of the following applies to the claimant:

• the claimant is resident outside the jurisdiction;
• the claimant is a company – whether incorporated in or outside Mauritius – and there is reason to believe it would be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if ordered to do so; or
• the claimant has dealt with its assets in a manner that would make it difficult to enforce an order for costs against it.

Where the court makes the order, it will fix the amount of security, direct the time within which and the manner in which it is to be provided, and specify the consequences of non-compliance.

The same protection extends to the appellate stage: under Rule 30, security for costs may be ordered against an appellant (or a defendant who also appeals) where any of the three above conditions is met.

Mauritius differentiates between domestic arbitral awards and foreign arbitral awards when dealing with enforcement. As a result, the legal framework and the grounds that may be relied upon to resist enforcement vary depending on whether the award is domestic or foreign.

The following categories of arbitral awards will generally not be enforced:

• awards that are contrary to public order;
• awards that determine issues relating to tax, securities and competition law;
• awards that relate to the winding-up of a company; and
• awards that are not final.

Domestic Awards

Recognition and enforcement of a domestic arbitral award is achieved through an order of exequatur, granted by the Supreme Court under Article 1026-8 of the Code de Procédure Civile. The application must be accompanied by a copy of the arbitration agreement and the original arbitral award.

The Judge in Chambers is empowered to conduct only a summary examination of the award, directed at ensuring that the award is not tainted by any fundamental defect and does not offend the public policy of Mauritius.

The Judge in Chambers will refuse an exequatur where the award does not concern a matter that was properly in dispute, or is not in truth an arbitral award, or if the authenticity of the award is open to doubt. The grant of exequatur renders the award executory, subject to any challenge or appeal; once the award has become executory, the creditor may proceed to enforcement measures, including attachment.

Foreign Awards

In Mauritius, an application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is made pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001 (Foreign Awards Act) and the International Arbitration Act 2008 Rules. The application is initially submitted ex parte, without notice to the respondent, and a fee of MUR10,000 is levied.

The application must include:

• the motion paper and supporting evidence, comprising the duly authenticated original award or a certified copy of it;
• the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it; and
• where neither the award nor the arbitration agreement was made in one of the official languages of Mauritius, a certified translation of the relevant document into English or French.

The written evidence filed in support of an enforcement claim shall also:

• exhibit the documents required by Article IV of the New York Convention;
• state the name and the usual or last known place of residence or business of the applicant and of the person against whom it is sought to enforce the award;
• state either:
1. that the award has not been complied with; or
2. the extent to which it has not been complied with at the date of the application; and
• attach a proposed draft order granting recognition of the award and, where appropriate, authorising the enforcement of the award in the same manner as a judgment of the court and containing a statement of:
1. the right to make an application to set the order aside; and
2. the restrictions on enforcement.

Upon receipt of an enforcement claim, the Chief Justice examines whether the requirements of the International Arbitration Act Rules have been satisfied. Where the application is compliant, the Chief Justice may issue a provisional order recognising the arbitral award or authorise the enforcement of the award in the same manner as a judgment of the court. The order may be granted in the terms requested by the applicant or in such amended terms as are necessary.

Within 14 calendar days of receiving the provisional order, the applicant must serve the enforcement claim motion, the notice of motion, the written evidence and the provisional order itself on every party to the enforcement claim.

Costs

The costs for the enforcement of domestic awards may vary between USD4,000 and USD9,000.

The bulk of costs borne by parties for the enforcement of international awards would be made up of counsel and attorney fees. Fees can range between USD2,000 and USD6,000 for lower value claims, but should be expected to be much higher for higher value claims (up to USD20,000–25,000).

Time Limit

The application for enforcement has to be lodged with the Supreme Court within 12 months from the date of the judgment.

Duration

The duration of enforcing an arbitral award will depend on whether or not the application is opposed. Usually, enforcements take between six and 18 months.

Domestic Awards

Under the Civil Procedure Code, an arbitral award rendered in a domestic arbitration may be challenged through the following three principal avenues, the availability of which depends on what the parties agreed in their arbitration agreement:

• tierce opposition (third-party opposition);
• appeal; and
• an action for annulment.

Tierce opposition (third-party opposition)

An award may be challenged by way of tierce opposition before the court that would have had jurisdiction over the dispute in the absence of arbitration.

Appeal

An award is open to appeal unless the parties have renounced that right in their arbitration agreement. Where appeal is available, it is the sole avenue of recourse, whether the party seeks to have the award reformed or annulled.

Action for annulment

Where the parties have renounced the right of appeal (or not expressly reserved it), an action for annulment may nonetheless be brought, notwithstanding any stipulation to the contrary. This action is available only on the following grounds:

• the arbitrator ruled without an arbitration agreement, or on an agreement that was null or had expired;
• the arbitral tribunal was irregularly constituted, or the sole arbitrator was irregularly appointed;
• the arbitrator failed to rule in conformity with the mission conferred on him or her;
• the adversarial principle was not respected; or
• the arbitrator violated a rule of public order.

Consequences and procedure

Where the court annuls an award, it proceeds to rule on the merits within the limits of the arbitrator’s mission, unless all parties agree otherwise. Both appeal and annulment lie to the Supreme Court and are admissible from the moment the award is pronounced but lapse if not exercised within one month of service of the award bearing the exequatur – and the running of that time limit, as well as any recourse brought within it, suspends enforcement of the award.

A decision of the Judge in Chambers granting exequatur may itself be appealed within one month of its service, in which case the Supreme Court will hear the grounds the parties could have raised against the award. Finally, the dismissal of an appeal or annulment action confers exequatur on the award, or on those parts of it left untouched by the Supreme Court’s review.

Foreign Awards

Section 39 of the International Arbitration Act 2008 provides that the only recourse against an award made in a Mauritius-seated international arbitration is an application to the Supreme Court to set it aside, and the Court may do so only on a closed list of grounds.

The following grounds must be proved by the party making the application:

• a party to the arbitration agreement lacked capacity, or the agreement was invalid under its governing law;
• the applicant was not given proper notice of the arbitrator’s appointment or of the proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the award deals with a dispute beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; or
• the composition of the tribunal, or the arbitral procedure, departed from the parties’ agreement or, failing such agreement, from the Act.

The Court may find the following grounds through its own assessment:

• the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Mauritian law;
• the award conflicts with the public policy of Mauritius;
• the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption; or
• a breach of the rules of natural justice substantially prejudiced a party’s rights.

Section 39 also confines and conditions that power. Where the objectionable parts of an award can be separated from the rest, only those parts are set aside.

An application must be brought within three months of the applicant’s receipt of the award. The Court may stay setting-aside proceedings to allow the tribunal to resume and cure the defect, and may order the award sum to be paid into court or otherwise secured pending the outcome. To resist recognition and enforcement, the respondent must apply to set aside the provisional order within 14 days of receiving it.

A decision of the Supreme Court rendered under the International Arbitration Act carries a further right of recourse: any party may appeal, as of right, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.