MAURITIUS Law and Practice Contributed by: André Robert, Ammar Oozeer and Deephallee Harnaran, BLC Robert & Associates
Where the case is one of urgency, the court may make such order as it thinks necessary, on the ex parte application of a party or proposed party to the arbitral proceedings (Section 23 (3) of the IAA). Where the case is not one of urgency, the court must act only on the application of a party to the arbitral proceedings made on notice to the other parties and to the arbitral tribunal, and with the permission of the arbitral tribunal or the agreement in writing of the other parties (Section 23 (4) of the IAA). Under Section 23 (5) of the IAA, other than in urgent circumstances, the Supreme Court can only order interim measures if the applicant has obtained the permission of the arbitral tribunal or written agree - ment of the other parties. In addition, the Supreme Court can act only if, and to the extent that, the arbi - tral tribunal and any other arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with powers regard - ing interim measures has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively. Where the court so orders, an order made by it shall cease to have effect on the order of the arbitral tribunal or of any such arbi - tral or other institution or person having power to act in relation to the subject matter of the order (Section 23 (6) of the IAA). Recently, in Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited v Imevbore and Others 2026 SCJ 186, the Supreme Court held that, where an arbitral tribunal has not been constituted and it would be impractical to appoint an emergency arbitrator given the urgency of the circum - stances, it still retained its jurisdiction under Sections 6 and 23 of the IAA to issue interim measures given that the conditions under Section 23 (5) of the IAA would be satisfied. In terms of costs, in deciding whether to order costs under Rule 19 of the 2013 Rules, the Supreme Court will consider the circumstances including the conduct of parties, whether the party has succeeded on part of its case and whether there was any admissible offer to settle which was drawn to the Court’s attention (Rule 19 (3) of the IAA). In Valluvar Khuzhumam Private Limited and Another v APC International and Anoth- er 2025 SCJ 510, costs was awarded as the applicant had delayed in initiating arbitration and insisted with
its court application, although an interim order was refused. Additionally, in Inside Capital Partners Ltd v Sadar 2026 SCJ 177, costs were awarded where an applicant moved to withdraw a freezing order in the nature of a Mareva injunction under the IAA without explanation and after putting the respondent through the trouble of appearing and filing its affidavit evi - dence. 6.3 Security for Costs Parties can be entitled to apply for an order for secu - rity for costs if the parties have agreed that the arbi - tration agreement shall be governed by specific rules that provide for such. Under the IAA, the arbitral tribu - nal can order a party to provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satis - fied (Section 21 (1)(c) of the IAA) or to provide security for costs (Section 21 (1)(e) of the IAA). Furthermore, under Section 39 (6) of the IAA, where an application is made to set aside an award, the court may order that any money made payable by the award shall be brought into court or otherwise secured pend - ing the determination of the application. It is also provided under Rule 28 of the 2013 Rules that a “defendant to any arbitration claim may apply for security for his costs of the proceedings”. Such an application is to be supported by written evidence, either by way of affidavit or in the form of one or more witness statements accompanied by any supporting documents (Rule 28 (2)). Where the court decides to make an order for security for costs, it shall determine the amount of security, direct the manner and time in which the security shall be given, and make an order specifying the consequences of a breach of the order for security for costs. In Laporte EGL v Laporte MAR 2025 SCJ 35, the Supreme Court confirmed that security for costs can be obtained pending an appeal before the Privy Coun - cil in the amount equivalent to the arbitral award. It reiterates the importance of preserving the rights of the successful party to damages. This was reaffirmed in the recent case of Super - Max Mauritius v Actis Con- sumer Grooming Judicial Committee Products Lim- ited 2026 SCJ 28 such that, even where a stay pending appeal to the Privy Council is refused, the court may,
612 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook