Jugnauth v. Ringadoo (Mauritius)

Jugnauth v. Raj Direvium Nagaya Ringadoo (Mauritius) [2008] UKPC 50 (05 November 2008)

Privy Council Appeal No 58 of 2007

Ashock Kumar Jugnauth Appellant

Raj Direvium Nagaya Ringadoo Respondent

and

(1) The Electoral Commissioner

(2) The Electoral Supervisory Commission

(3) The Returning Officer of Constituency No. 8

(4) Mr Surendra Dayal

(5) Mr Ramloll Parmessur Co-respondents

FROM

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF

MAURITIUS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

Delivered the 5^th November 2008

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Lord Mance

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Delivered by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry]

In the period before July 2005 the appellant, Ashock Kumar Jugnauth, was the Member of Parliament for constituency no 8 and held office as Minister of Health and Quality of Life in the government formed by the MSM/MMM alliance. On 24 April 2005 the National Assembly was dissolved and on 9 May, acting in terms of section 41(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1958 ("the 1958 Act"), the President of the Republic issued a writ of election for a new Parliament. The date specified for the election was 3 July 2005.

At the election the government was defeated and a new government was formed by the Alliance Sociale. Mr Jugnauth was, however, elected as the first of three members for the no 8 constituency. The other two elected were members of the Alliance Sociale. The respondent, Mr Raj Direvium Nagaya Ringadoo, was a candidate of the Alliance Sociale in the same constituency, but he ranked fifth in the poll and so was not elected.

So far as relevant for present purposes, section 45(1) of the 1958 Act provides:

"(a)… a petition (in this Act referred to as an election petition) complaining of an undue election of a member to service in a council on the ground that

…

(ii) the election was avoided by reason of bribery, treating, undue influence, illegal practice, irregularity, or any reason,

may be presented to a Judge in Chambers by

…

(C) any person who alleges he was a candidate at the election to which the petition relates.

….

(c) Notwithstanding this Act or any other enactment, an election petition shall not be presented against a member and the return or election of a member shall not be avoided on the ground that, in connection with, or in furtherance of, his candidature or for his return or election –

(i) any act was done, services were rendered or expenditure was incurred by a public officer, a local government officer or an officer of a statutory authority or corporation where the act was…

Continue reading Jugnauth v. Ringadoo (Mauritius)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established