MAURITIUS Law and Practice Contributed by: André Robert, Ammar Oozeer and Deephallee Harnaran, BLC Robert & Associates
• the successful party should recover a “reasonable amount reflecting the actual costs of the arbitra - tion and not only a nominal amount”, and, if the award does not allocate costs, “each party shall be responsible for their own costs and shall bear in equal share the costs” of the arbitration, fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal and any other related expenses. The conduct of the parties is one of the factors con - sidered in awarding costs. 11. Review of an Award 11.1 Grounds for Appeal While there is no general right of appeal against an award under the IAA, the following applies: • the First Schedule to the IAA provides for a right of appeal on any question of Mauritius law – parties can opt into the First Schedule, but its application is mandatory in arbitrations on the constitution of global business companies; and • Section 39 of the IAA provides an exclusive recourse on limited grounds for the setting-aside of an award made in an arbitration seated in Mauri - tius. Under Section 39 (2) of the IAA, an arbitral award may be set aside by the Supreme Court only in the case of the following. • Where the party making the application furnishes proof that: (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have sub - jected it or, failing any indication thereon, under Mauritius law; (b) it was not given proper notice of the appoint - ment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceed - ings, or was otherwise unable to present its case; (c) the award deals with a dispute not contem - plated by, or not falling within the terms of, the submission to arbitration, or contains a decision on a matter beyond the scope of the
submission to arbitration; or (d) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the IAA. • Where the Court finds that: (a) the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Mauritius law; (b) the award is in conflict with the public policy of Mauritius; (c) the making of the award was induced or af - fected by fraud or corruption; or (d) a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred during the arbitral proceedings or in connec - tion with the making of the award by which the rights of any party have been or will be sub - stantially prejudiced. An appeal against any final decision of three Des - ignated Judges of the Supreme Court can only be made to the Privy Council (Section 44 of the IAA). It is worth noting that a party seeking a stay of execution of the judgment pending an appeal to the Privy Coun - cil has the burden of “bringing compelling reasons and to demonstrate not only by argument, but also by evidence why the judgment should not be executed pending the appeal” ( Super - Max Mauritius v Actis Consumer Grooming Products Limited 2026 SCJ 28). Under Section 39 (4) of the IAA, an application for set - ting aside may not be made more than three months after the date on which the party making that applica - tion has received the award or, if a request has been made under Section 38 of the IAA (for correction or interpretation of an award or for an additional award), from the date on which that request has been dis - posed of by the arbitral tribunal. When asked to set aside an award, the court may, where appropriate and so requested by a party, sus - pend the setting-aside proceedings for a period of time determined by it in order to give the arbitral tribu - nal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the arbitral tribunal’s opinion will eliminate the grounds for setting aside (Section 39 (5) of the IAA), and may order that any
615 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook