Dayal v Jugnauth & Ors

Appellant

Timothy Straker KC

Nandkishore Ramburn SC

Imogen Sadler

(Instructed by Etude AO Jankee (Mauritius))

First to Third Respondents

Guy Vassall-Adams KC

Louis Eric Wilson Ribot SC

Ravindra Chetty SC

Tim James-Matthews

(Instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP)

Fourth and Sixth Respondents

Helen Mountfield KC

Annabelle Ombrasine

(Instructed by RWK Goodman LLP (London))

Fifth Respondent

Rishi Pursem SC

Anwar Moollan SC

Ali Adamjee

Raza Currimjee

(Instructed by Etude A Rajah SA (Mauritius))

dame sue carr:

Introduction

1. This appeal arises out of the 2019 Mauritius National Assembly election, in which the appellant (“Mr Dayal”) was an unsuccessful candidate. He challenged the validity of the election of three of his political opponents on grounds of bribery, treating and undue influence for the purpose of sections 64 and 65 of the Representation of the People Act 1958 (Mauritius) (“the Act”).  His petition under section 45 of the Act was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Mauritius (the Honourable Judges Mr David Chan Kan Cheong and Mrs Karuna Devi Gunesh-Balaghee) in a judgment dated 12 August 2022.  He now appeals against that dismissal with the leave of the Supreme Court.
2. Mauritius is a parliamentary democracy governed by a written constitution. It has 21 electoral constituencies, 20 with three members each, and one (Rodrigues) with two. Mr Dayal and the first to third respondents (“Mr Jugnauth”, “Mr Luchoomun”, “Mr Sawmynaden”) were all candidates in Constituency No. 8 (Quartier Militaire and Moka) (“the constituency”). Mr Dayal belonged to L’ Alliance Nationale (“LAN”); the first to third respondents belonged to L’ Alliance Morisien (“LAM”). The first to third respondents ranked first, second and third in the voting and so were elected; Mr Dayal ranked fifth and so was unelected. Following the election, LAM returned to form the Government, and Mr Jugnauth resumed his position as Prime Minister. That is a position that he has held since January 2017 and continues to hold. The next general election is due to take place next year, in 2024.  
3. By the time of the appeal hearing, Mr Dayal’s challenge had narrowed to three grounds. He contends that the Supreme Court was wrong in law to dismiss the following allegations:

(i)                That promises made by Mr Jugnauth in October 2019 to increase the basic retirement pension (“BRP”), to accelerate forms of public sector pay and terms, and to pay one-off performance bonuses to police officers, firemen and prison officers constituted bribery (grounds 1 and 3);

(ii)             That the provision of free food and drink at an event on 1 October 2019 organised by the Ministry of Social Security (“MSS”) constituted treating (ground 2).

4. The sixth respondent was the returning officer for the constituency.  The fourth respondent (“the ESC”) and the fifth respondent had responsibility for supervision of the general election.  No criticism is made of their conduct.  No concerns were drawn to their attention during the course of the election campaign of any facts or matters said to amount to bribery or treating. They appeared before the Board in order to assist on…