IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS (MEDIATION DIVISION) On Monday 05 March 2018 Before Hon O B Madhub, Mediation Judge Jayeshwur Raj Dayal Plaintiff vis The State & Ors Defendants Mr A Dayal, of Counsel, appears for the plaintiff instructed by Mr N Appa Jala SA, in Cause Number SCR No.109566 - 1/223/14 and Mr Attorney D Luchmun in Cause Numbers SCR No. 109637 - 1/261/14 and SCR 109643 . 1/265/14 Mrs M J Lau Yuk Poon, Assistant Solicitor General, appears together with Ms P Punchu, State Counsel, for defendants except for Defendant No7 in Cause Number SCR No 109566 - 1/223/14 instructed by Ms Nirsimiloo, (Ag) Chief State Attorney. Plaintiff is present Legal Advisers state that parties have reached the following agreement !T HAS BEEN AGREED, COVENANTED AND SAID AS FOLLOWS : 1 Plaintiff, currently a Member of Parliament, was a member of the Police Force and a former Commissioner of Police who joined the service 10 February 1971 2 On 23 November 1997, he was suspended from Office and, on 30 January 2000 he was removed from Office following recommendations made by a Tribunal set up under section 93(4) of the Constitution O ou Coles ‘ty os os heHad he not been removed from office, he would in the normal course of things, have remained in Office until 07 July 2009, date on which he would have been retired from Office on grounds of age. . After being removed from office, Plaintiff was prosecuted before the Intermediate Court under the following charges - (a) Under count 1, giving false evidence before a Commission of Inquiry in that he produced a letter dated 1 September 1997 signed by Inspector Buntipilly, knowing that the contents of that letter were false, in breach of Section 12(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act; (b) Under count 2, for fraudulently altering the substance of a document which was drawn up in the discharge of his duty by stating a false fact as true, in breach of Sections 107 and 121 of the Criminal Code; (c) Under count 3 Plaintiff was charged with one Jugdish Baggonauth for having unlawfully agreed with each other to do an unlawful act in breach of Section 109 of the Criminal Code. In a ruling dated 02 February 2007 (2007 INT 5), the Intermediate Court ordered that the proceedings be stayed on account of abuse of process. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the said ruling of the Intermediate Court. On 04 October 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal (2010 SCJ 314). . By a letter dated 03 September 2013, (Reference PR61298) the Accountant General informed the then Commissioner of Police that he had computed Plaintiff's entitlement which isan ex-gratia lump sum in the amount of Rs15,160,782.28 consisting of gratuity, non-taxable sick leave, taxable sick leave, vacation leave, passage benefits, reduced pension for period years 2000 to 2009 and additional compensation ( pension as from January 2009). . By letter dated 28 October 2013, the then Commissioner of Police, on behalf of the State, offered to Plaintiff, a sum of Rs.5,723,769.68 as a lump sum payment Plaintiff declined that offer and, on 9, 26 and 27 May 2014, lodged the three cases under reference, SCR no. 109566 (1/223/14), SCR no. 109637 (1/261/14) and SCR no.109643 (1/265/14) before the Supreme Court claiming a total of one billion five hundred and ninety million rupees: as damages for faute as follows - (a) SCR no. 109566 (1/223/14) — a claim of 500 million rupees from the State and from several other defendants jointly and in solido ; o>(b) SCR no. 109637 (1/261/14) - a claim of 90 million rupees from the Commissioner of Police and the State jointly and in solido ; (c) SCR no. 109643 (1/265/14) - a claim of one billion rupees from the State. 9. The above three cases were called several times before the Supreme Court. 10. Prior to the hearing of these cases, the respective legal advisers of the Parties held discussions in order to explore avenues of a possible settlement 11. These discussions did not materialise and, finally, upon request made by the Plaintiff on 4 October 2017 to which the State agreed, the Honourable Chief Justice referred all three matters to the Mediation Division of the Supreme Court 12 On 8 November 2017, 12 December 2017 and on 28 February 2018. the case was called before the Mediation Division of the Supreme Court, the Parties have now agreed to the present « transaction » which is expressly stated by the Parties to be governed by Articles 2044 and following of the Code Civil and, more especially. Article 2062 which provides that « transactions » have « 'autonté de la chose jugée en denier ressort » and may not be revoked on the ground of error or of “/ésion” ‘ 13. The State shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs15, 160,782.28 (Fifteen Million One hundred and Sixty Thousand: Seven hundred and Eighty Two and Twenty Eight Cents), which sald sum is the same as computed by the Accountant General in September 2013. 14. The Plaintiff expressly agrees that the payment of the above amount of Rs. 15,160,782.28, (Fifteen Million One hundred and Sixty Thousand Seven hundred and Eighty Two and Twenty Eight Cents) shall be under the express condition that - (a) such payment is in full and final satisfaction of all claims present, past and future that the Plaintiff may have against the State in the above three cases, or against any of its servants, agents or préposés of the State (b) The State shall deduct such amount as Plaintiff may be liable to pay as income tax or any other tax. the Plaintiff being at liberty to claim from the Mauritius Revenue Authority any amount which, according to him, may have been wrongly deducted; and(c) The amount to be paid to Plaintiff shall be credited into his name that is, Raj Jayeshwur DAYAL, holder of National Identity Card Number , holder of Account Number 031190 , SBM Bank Mauritius Ltd, Vacoas Branch. 15. The Plaintiff also states that he hereby irrevocably gives to the State in all the above three cases good and valid discharge of all their obligations towards him and states that he has no further claim of whatsoever nature against the State, its servants, agents, or préposés. 16 The Plaintiff and Defendants are fully aware that the present agreement “shall be executed in the same manner as if it were a judgment of the Court by consent of and between the parties who have signed it pursuant to Rule 13(3) of the Supreme Court (Mediation) Rules 2010. 17.The parties hereby acknowledge that the present agreement entered into on the terms set out as above has “auforité de la chose jugée en demier ressort’ in terms of Article 2052 of the Civil Code and hereby give written consent in accordance with Rule 10 (2)(a) of the Supreme Court (Mediation) Rules 2010. Parties ratify the agreement Plaintiff Jayeshwur Raj Dayal, Member of Parliament, ID No Defendants Defendants are duly represented by: Mr Tangavel Seerungen, the Deputy Oe, Mediatipny ge f — _— Commissioner of Police, 1D No. 54 lanche 2013