BISSESSUR A.

v SIR ANEROOD JUGNAUTH & ORS

2018 SCJ 127

Record No. 112812

THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of:-

A. Bissessur

Applicant

1. Sir Anerood Jugnauth

2. The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
3. The Accountant-General

Respondents

In the presence of:-

The State of Mauritius

Co-Respondent
----------

JUDGMENT

The first respondent was in 2008 re-elected by the National Assembly to the
office of President of the Republic of Mauritius. Following his resignation in 2012 he has
been drawing a pension under the President’s Emoluments and Pension Act 1992 (the
PEP Act). He stood as candidate for the general election of December 2014 and was
upon his election, appointed as Prime Minister and paid allowances as Prime Minister
under the National Assembly Allowances Act 1973 (the NAA Act). In January 2017 he
resigned as Prime Minister and was, in February 2017, appointed as Minister and paid
allowances as Minister under the NAA Act.

The present application – by way of a most ill-crafted motion and affidavit in

support – is in essence one for leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision of the
second and third respondents to continue to pay a pension under the PEP Act to the first
respondent inasmuch as he has since December 2014 been paid a “basic monthly
 2

salary” as Prime Minister and subsequently as Minister, and this allegedly in breach of
section 4(2) of the PEPA which reads as follows:
“A retiring President or Vice-President in receipt of a pension under
subsection (1) shall not undertake any remunerative employment during
the remainder of his life.”

We note that the present application for judicial review was not originally
accompanied by a statement of case. It is only after the respondents had mentioned the
absence of this document as one of their grounds of objection to the granting of leave
that the appellant has caused such a document to be served on the respondents and
filed at the Registry.

Be that as it may, leave to apply for judicial review cannot be granted, and this for
a number of reasons. First, the application which was lodged only on 22 February 2016
cannot be said to have been made promptly. Secondly, the applicant has failed to
establish that he has sufficient locus standi to bring the present application. His claim of
being a citizen of Mauritius and a taxpayer does not constitute sufficient interest for the
purposes of an application for judicial review. And, thirdly and most importantly, the
applicant’s affidavit has failed to disclose an arguable case. As indicated in the NAA Act
itself, Ministers and other Members of the National Assembly are paid an allowance.
That legislation does not make mention of remuneration which would have implied an
employer/employee relationship under which an employer pays an employee for work
done. In fact Members of the National Assembly are not, by virtue of their membership,
employed by the State or any other body.

In view of what we have said above, we refuse to grant leave to apply for judicial
review and set aside the present application with costs.

K.P. Matadeen
Chief Justice

D. Chan Kan Cheong

 3

Judge
18 April 2018

Judgment delivered by Hon. K.P. Matadeen, Chief Justice

For Applicant : Mr P. Rangasamy, Attorney-at-Law

Mr Y. Mohamed, S.C.

For Respondent No. 1 : Mr T. Koenig, S.A.

Mr D. Basset, S.C., Mr R. Gulbul and
Mr K. Namdarkhan, of Counsel

For Respondent No. 2, : Ms V. Nirsimloo, Deputy Chief State Attorney

Respondent No. 3 and Mrs M.J. Lau Yuk Poon, Assistant Solicitor-General and
Co-Respondent Ms K. Dwarka-Davay, State Counsel