MAURITIUS) At the suit and instance of Satyawan Trilochun (also known

TO as and commonly referred to as Kailash Trilochun) of 4 Petite

WIT Marie, Ave Des Espadons, Morcellement Anna, Flic-en-Flac
having elected his legal domicile at Room No 404, 4th Floor,
Sterling Tower,14 La Poudriere Street, Port Louis

NOTICE AND PROPOSED PLAINT WITH SUMMONS

NOTICE

1. This is the mandatory notice on behalf of the Plaintiff against the

aforementioned Defendants. The facts, cause of action and claim
against the Defendants are fully set out in the Proposed Plaint With
Summons section below.

2. Warning you that Should you the Defendants not settled the claim as
set out in the proposed Plaint with Summons or negotiate with the
Plaintiff, he will initiate proceedings against the defendants as
prescribed under the law by entering a case based on the facts, cause
of action and claim are fully set out in the Proposed Plaint With
Summons section below.

PROPOSED PLAINT WITH SUMMONS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

In the matter of:-
Satyawan Trilochun (also known as and commonly referred to as Kailash
Trilochun) of 4 Petite Marie, Ave Des Espadons, Morcellement Anna, Flic-en-Flac

Plaintiff
v

1. Sir Aneerood JUGNAUTH, GCSK, KCMG, QC, MP, PC service to be effected

at Ministry of Defence and Rodrigues Level 6, New Government Centre, Port
Louis

2. The State of Mauritius, service to be effected upon the Attorney General,

Renganaden Seeneevasen Building, Port Louis
Defendants
 PROPOSED PLAINT WITH SUMMONS

THE PARTIES

THE PLAINTIFF

1. The Plaintiff is a well-known Barrister. He was called to the Bar of England and
Wales and Mauritius in 1999 and 2002 respectively. He regularly appears before the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and has led cases before International
Arbitration Tribunals. He regularly takes pro-bono cases before the District Courts
right up to the Board. He has lost counts of the number of cases he has appeared
appointed by the courts in forma pauperis even cases which involved going to
Rodrigues. He has never asked for the nominal fees in any of the in forma pauperis
cases that he has been appointed. Such is his resolve and commitment towards his
profession and dispensing justice to those who cannot afford a lawyer.

2. The Plaintiff had taught law free of any charge for several years and sponsored some
of his students and their families during their studies.

3. The Plaintiff is also a person of honour, good character with a clean record. He
enjoyed a good reputation right until September 2016 which has been tarnished due
the torts caused by the Defendants as set out below.

4. He is a father of two children and is raising a third as his own who is currently a
university student. He is a family man and his family are proud of him.

5. The Plaintiff had earned Rs15,476,679 in 2016 before tax.

6. The Plaintiff avers that he had a thriving practice up to September 2016 and a
chambers with juniors and clerks but was forced to close it down in or about 2017 due
to the torts caused to him by the Defendant No.1 as set out below. In July 2018 the
Plaintiff has re-opened his Chambers but has not had even one client paid client so
far.

THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR RESPECTIVE CAUSES OF ACTION

7. The Plaintiff sets out below the causes of action against the Defendants. For the
avoidance of any doubt, his case against the Defendants is based on tort (“faute
lourde”).

8. Defendant No. 1 is the Minister Mentor, Minister of Defence, Minister for Rodrigues.
The Defendant was also the President of the Republic of Mauritius from 2003 to
2012.
9. At the material time Defendant No. 1 was the Prime Minister, Minister of Defence,
Home Affairs, Minister of Rodrigues amongst others.

10. On or about the 12th of September 2016, the Defendant No. 1 as the Prime Minister
of the Republic of Mauritius held a press conference which was aired live on the
radios in Mauritius and worldwide through the internet and publicised by the written
press and also published on the internet for the whole world to have access to read
and hear what he said.

11. The Plaintiff avers that Defendant No. 1 has publicly lied about the circumstances
relating to the former‟s involvement as counsel in the civil case of Emtel Ltd v (i) The
Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA) & Ors 2017 SCJ
294 Record No: 1/253/00 (hereinafter referred to as “The Emtel Case”) before the
Supreme Court of Mauritius. During the aforementioned press conference Defendant
No. 1 lied about the circumstances regarding the fees claimed by the Plaintiff and
insulted him by referring to him as “Bebet” meaning beast/inhuman and “Bachiara”
meaning a person who is immoral, decadent, evil, dishonest, unethical, abominable
and wicked. All of which amounts to the tort caused by Defendant No. 1.

12. The Plaintiff‟s cause of actions against Defendant No.2 is based on statutory
vicarious liability for the torts committed by Defendant No.1 and the concept of
principal and agent set out in the Civil Code Act. Defendant No. 1 was at the material
time the agent (préposé) of Defendant No. 2 which is, consequently, the principal
(commettant) of Defendant No. 1.

THE MATERIAL FACTS

13. In or about March 2015, the Plaintiff was appointed as the legal adviser of ICTA by
the Board of ICTA.

14. The services of the Plaintiff as Counsel were retained by ICTA in the Emtel Case
before the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

15. The fees of the Plaintiff for the Emtel Case were concluded as follows:-

(a) The Plaintiff avers that after taking cognisance of the brief he went to see Mr.
Avinash Sunassee of Counsel and proposed him to act as co-counsel in the Emtel
Case. After a calculation of the estimated number of hours that would be required
at an hourly rate of 400 USD, the figures came to more than Rs. 24 million.

(b) In or about the first week of march 2016, the Plaintiff was instructed to appear in
the Emtel Case and after having gone through the Brief and in the interest of the
Authority and ultimately the Government of Mauritius, which the Plaintiff was
supporting at that time, he decided to reduce the figure to Rs. 12 million which
included the 2 anticipated appeal processes, that is before the Civil Court of
Appeal (Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Mauritius) and the
anticipated appeal before Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That decision
was taken in good faith and as a patriot despite knowing what he stood to lose
 financially and the stress and pressure that he would have to endure. Furthermore,
he knew that doing such a case in such a short span of time would mean that he
would not have any rest which would affect his health but again in the interest of
justice and the ICTA he made the decision to go ahead at the reduced rate.

(c) In an e-mail dated the 21st of March 2016 at 09:46 hrs the Plaintiff addressed to
the ICTA‟s Board, including its Officer in Charge, its Acting Finance Director
and its then Legal Assistant. This is what the Plaintiff wrote:

“From: Kailash Trilochun [mailto:trilochun@gmail.com]

Sent: 21 March 2016 09:46
To: kaushik JADUNUNDUN <kaushik62@msn.com>; Advisor Board ICTA
<ishwarb@intnet.mu>;dseewooruthun@govmu.org; gayleyerriah@gmai
l.com; gerard.cathan@totalmauritius.com;dneela@intnet.mu; rnbeehar
ee@intnet.mu ICTA
<rnbeeharee@intnet.mu>; gerard.cathan8@gmail.com;spurmessur@go
vmu.org; Satish JHURRY
<Satish.JHURRY@lapirogue.mu>; satishsharma753@yahoo.com;tdabees
ing@icta.mu Dabeesing <tdabeesing@icta.mu>; Ramchurn Chatoo
<rchatoo@icta.mu>
Subject: proposed

Dear All,

I thank you all for the trust put on me to act as counsel in the case of
Emtel v ICTA and others.

it is a huge brief with thousands of pages. the case is scheduled for 6

weeks continuous sittings.

i will need to have a colleague of good standing and competence to

appear with me (Mr. Sunnassee) together with 2 juniors.

i have gone through the brief which itself took the best of 2 weeks.

i am now in a position to quote my fees for it which is Rs. 12 million

excluding vat. i would like to remind all of you that so far the cost for
emtel legal fees is well over Rs. 100 million rs. and it is probably going to
significantly increase by the end of the case. I think we have a
reasonable case - week [SIC] in some areas but strong on others.

i would need to have an answer by tomorrow whether you agree re. my

proposed fees would I have charged my hourly rate the fee would [SIC]
have been substantially higher. And I also foresee that the case will end
up before the Privy Council again.
 The quoted fees will cover the case up to the end with no other charges.

regards”

(d) On the 21st of March 2016 at 11:18 hrs i.e. less than 2 hours after the proposed
fees Mr. P. Boodhram, the Advisor to the Chairman and Acting Board Secretary
of ICTA, sent to the Plaintiff an e-mail. Its contents read as follows:

“Dear Me Trilochun

I am directed to inform you that your services retained by ICTA are

terminated with immediate effect.

You are kindly requested to return to the Officer in Charge, by tomorrow

Tuesday 22 March 2016 at latest, all documents and cases in your
possession.

By copy of this correspondence, the Officer in charge is instructed to

liaise with Me Trilochun to take over the above docs/cases as applicable

P Boodhram
Ag Board Secretary
f/ Chairman”

(e) The then Officer in Charge of ICTA, Mr. T. Dabeesing, sent an e-

mail dated the 22nd of March 2016 at 05:50 hrs which reads as
follows:

“Dear Me Trilochun

With reference to mail below, kindly inform me of a convenient date and

time for you to come to the Authority for the handing over of all the
documents in your possession pertaining to ICTA Court cases and
requests for legal advice

Trilok DABEESING | Officer in Charge”

Rgds

(f) On the same day, the Plaintiff replied to the e-mail of T. Dabeesing
which reads as follows:

“Mr. Dabeesing,
 I am concerned with the mail below.

I have been appointed by the Board and it is only for the Board to
terminate my services. As far as court cases are concerned it is the
attorney who instructs me.

Please let me know whether the Board revoked me if it is not the case i
am giving you notice that I will take such legal actions as may be
appropriate.

This mail have some serious legal consequences not just in terms of a
possible claim against Mr. Boodram and eventually the Authority if it has
participated in it but also for all the cases pending on live before courts
and tribunals.

I sincerely do not wish to drag this matter before the court for obvious
reasons and all I ask is that this be dealt with in accordance with the law.

I would also invite you to look at terms of my appointment.

Regards

Satyawan Kailash Trilochun”

(g) One of the ICTA Board member, Mr. Satish Jhurry, replied to the
aforementioned mails on the same day which reads as follows:

“Dear All
Good afternoon, I am reading with great concern the termination of
contract of Mr Kailash Trilochun as the legal advisor of ICTA. As far as I
recall, the ICTA Board appointed Mr K.Trilochun as the legal advisor of
the Board and I think that only the Board can decide to terminate the
contract of services of Mr Trilochun on very especial circumstances only.
I’m not aware whether there was a board decision concerning this issue,
but it is for sure that I had not voted for it. Following conversation I had
with other board member, it seem that there was no motion voted
to terminate the contract of service of Mr Trilochun. Anyway, as a board
member I want to know:

(0) Was there a board decision to terminate this contract of service?

(1) who instructed Mr Boodram to terminate the service of Mr

Trilochun?

(2) is there any instruction from above or other level, as the Chairman
use to say every time there is a conflicting decision, to terminate the
 contract of service, if yes, please let us know, so that we know what to do
?

(3) not long time ago, our Chairman had a long speech or chant the
Glory of Mr Trilochun as being very good and sharp as lawyer, who is
working in favour and interest of the ICTA, advice on good corporate
governance , had always advice the chairman and the Board on all legal
matters concerning ICTA, etc, etc; and now at a sudden who took (qui
ose prendre cette decision) the drastic decision to terminate his contract.
Please clarify us, we are all devoted to work in the interest of ICTA and
the Government and an informed decision is better than being in
obscurity.

IF NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AND In case

there is a motion to remove Mr Trilochun as the legal advisor of ICTA, I
WILL VOTE AGAINST THIS MOTION.”

(h) On the 23rd of March 2016, the Officer in Charge of the ICTA wrote
this in an email addressed to the Plaintiff:

“Dear Me Trilochun

Pl refer to your mail below.

I am informed by the Ag Board Secretary that the ICT Board has, by way
of circulation, unanimously conveyed its approval/resolution to ratify the
decision that your services as Legal Advisor on a retainer basis is no
longer required at ICTA since 21 March 2016.

I wish to seize this opportunity to thank you on behalf of the ICT Authority
for the services you have provided during your time with us.

Rgds
Trilok DABEESING | Officer in Charge”

(i) The Plaintiff avers that it was his responsibility to ensure that the
Government is appraised about how the Mr. B. Beeharry, the then
Chairperson of the ICTA,was jeopardising the Emtel Case. The
Plaintiff accordingly informed Honourable Nandcoomar Bodha by
an e-mail dated the 22nd of March 2016 of the situation and never
asked him or anyone else to arrange a meeting with Defendant No.
1. The said e-mail reads as follows:

“Emtel
 V

ICTA
Cellplus
Mauritius Telecom
Ministry of Telecommunication

The aforementioned case is based on the following:

1. ICTA’s (formerly known as Telecommunication Authority) failure to

perform its duties under the law.

2. ICTA’s failure to act as a proper regulator and prevent unfair competition

and cross-subsidisation.

3. breach of competition law.

The case involves voluminous documents which in itself will take months to
produced in court.

It involves complicated competition and regulatory laws and statutory

duties.

The Claim is for Rs. 1.1 billion which Emtel can substantiate. The claim as it
stands with interest is over Rs. 3.7 billion.

The case well prepared and presented can be won on procedural points but
not in substance. The quantum can be reduced.

The case is fixed in May for 40 continuous days.

My quoted fees is Rs. 12 million which includes:

1. my fees
2. Mr. A sunnassee fees
3. 2 juniors
4. A QC from UK.
5. Appeal on ruling to the Supreme Court
6. Appeal to the Privy Council.
7. continue the case up to the end at no extra cost

now that I have been asked to withdraw the case will have to be handled by
some very experienced lawyers. The Court made it clear that there will be
no postponement granted.
 The Chairperson is bent on destroying the ICTA. I request that Mr.
Purmessur who is the deputy PS of the ministry of ICT and a member of the
Board be contacted for an independent evaluation of the situation at the
ICTA.”

16. The Plaintiff avers it is Honourable Nandcoomar Bodha who went to see Defendant
No. 1 and explained him the situation regarding the ICTA and the EMTEL Case.

17. Following that, Defendant No. 1 invited the Plaintiff to come to a meeting in his
office on or about the 6th of April 2016. When the Plaintiff arrived in the Defendant
No. 1‟s office, he saw Defendant No. 1, Honourable Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, Mr.B.
Beeharry the then Chairman of the ICTA and Mr. Sudarshan (Roshi) Bhadain.

18. In the aforementioned meeting the Plaintiff summarised the Emtel Case to Defendant
No. 1 in the following terms:-
(i) Emtel has claimed damages jointly and insolido against all the defendants
namely, ICTA, Mauritius Telecom Ltf, Cellplus Ltd and the Ministry of ICT.
The claim was based on competition law which was a novel area in Mauritius,
tort and breach of statutory duty;

(ii) that after 16 years of representation by the State Law Office and the case
having gone before the Civil Court of Appeal 3 times and the Privy Council,
counsel from the State Law Office had virtually, on the eve of the case, stated
that they cannot represent both the Ministry of ICT and the ICTA on the
ground of conflict of interest;

(iii) that the ICTA Statement of Defence was broadly speaking a blanket denial and
that there was not a single document or explanation in the ICTA case file to
support any defence against the claim;

(iv) that there was no support from Mr. B. Beeharry as Chairman of the ICTA to
defend the case although he was one of the 3 officers who were in charge of
the then Authority;

(v) that the fees he had quoted was for 3 different instances meaning the trial on
the merits of the case, the anticipated appeal before the Civil Court of Appeal
and the appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council;

(vi) that Emtel entered the case outside the statutory delay of 2 years and did not
aver bad faith which were valid plea in limine litis that were not taken by the
former legal representatives of the ICTA;

(vii) Mr. Roshi Bhadain gave his opinion on the case in line with the Plaintiff;

(viii) Defendant No. 1 agreed with the Plaintiff that the aforementioned preliminary
points were valid points;
 (ix) Defendant No. 1 lashed out at Mr. B. Beeharry telling him that he misinformed
him about the whole Emtel Case and about the Plaintiff‟s quoted fees;

(x) Defendant No.1 also told Mr. B. Beeharry that he had information that he was
terrorising the staff of the ICTA. He reminded Mr. B. Beeharry that he has
warned him before about the complaints he had concerning the way he was
conducting himself at the ICTA;

(xi) Honourable P.K. Jugnauth took the defence of Mr. B. Beeharry by saying that
Defendant No. 1 had only one version of the story about the conduct of Mr. B.
Beeharry and it was not enough to sanction him;

(xii) The Plaintiff explained to all those present in the meeting that the other
defendants‟ counsel had 16 years to prepare for the Emtel case and the Plaintiff
had only a few weeks to do so as the case was due to start in May 2016 and it
was fixed for 6 consecutive weeks of hearing and that it was likely that the case
would go over the scheduled 6 weeks. He also explained that according to his
information the cost for the Emtel case was taxed well over Rs. 100 million
and that cost will run even higher as Emtel had retained the services of an
English QC who is a specialist in competition law and were represented by
Counsel from the Chambers of Sir Hamid Moollan QC;

(xiii) that the fee charged by counsel for Mauritius Telecom and Cellplus was 400
USD per hour and if he were to charge per hour he would have to align himself
on the same rate;

(xiv) The Plaintiff stressed in no uncertain terms that should ICTA pay him per hour,
the fee will be substantially higher than the fee he had originally quoted;

(xv) Defendant No. 1 stated that based on the preliminary points that the Plaintiff
intended to raise, there was the possibility that the Emtel case would be over on
the first couple of days which would mean that it could cost the ICTA much
less than the quoted fee;

(xvi) The Plaintiff explained that this is a risk that ICTA would be taking. Defendant
No. 1 said in no uncertain terms that the Plaintiff should charge an hourly rate
in line with the counsel for Mauritius Telecom and Cellplus.

19. The Plaintiff further avers that 3 days before the meeting he sent
an e-mail to the then Attorney General explaining him about the
quoted fees and the implications of the EMTEL Case.

20. The Plaintiff avers that the Emtel Case was heard and judgment
has already been delivered. The first three defendants in the Emtel
Case were ordered by the Supreme Court to pay a much lesser sum to
Emtel. The relevant Defendants have appealed against the said
judgment.
 THE PRESS CONFERENCE BY DEFENDANT NO. 1

21. On or about the 12th of September 2016, Defendant No. 1 held a

press conference. The relevant extract of the aforementioned press
conference is set down in writing below. The said press conference
can still be viewed by anyone the internet at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trCmgt3LsYY which has been
uploaded by lexpress.mu. The press conference can also be viewed on
other sites from on the internet. The said link gives the complete
aforementioned press conference but what Defendant No. 1 said
about the Plaintiff during the press conference is transcribed below
(for ease of reference the said transcript has been line numbered and
paragraphed and the Lies and Insults are serially numbered):

Video link time 05:01:

1 “ Mo ti a content zaffaire l’actualite dire quelques mots lor problem de

2 Kailash Trilochun, le fameux avocat [1st insult]. Permet moi aborde sa
3 sujet la. En ce qu’il s’agit de sa avocat la laisse mo dire li aussi
4 categoriquement ki possible ki jamais au grand jamais mo pas ti
5 donne li mo approbation pou ki li paye …. payer par lertant. C’est
6 faux. Dans sa reunion la ti ena moi meme, ti ena limeme ti ena Roshi
7 Badhain ki li tine ameme ek li [1st lie]et moi mo ti invite Pravind
8 Jugnauth mo ti dire li ete present et ti ena le chairman de l’ICTA.

9 Tout sa dimoune pou capave temoigner ki ine passer dans sa reunion

10 la. Ki a aucun moment mo pas fine d’accord[2nd lie] surtout ki quant
11 so chiffres ki li pe reclamer a cette epoque la c’etait 11 ou 12 millions
12 rupees [3rd lie]. Mo ti dire ki pou ene zaffaire en Cour Supreme li trop
13 cher pas capave payer [4th lie].

14 Et en realite avant sa le chairman de l’ICTA ti telephone moi pou dire

15 voila intel ki avocat pou l’ICTA pe reclame tant, mo dire li li pas
16 possible. Mo dire li faire reduire li faire reduire et si li pas reduire
17 effectivement bannes mots ki mo ti servi la fou li dehors [2nd insult],
18 prend ene lotte avocat. Li fine fou li dehor3rd insult],mais li finne
19 demande pou zouene moi l’avocat la[5th lie], ben mo ine dire li vini
20 ensemble avec chairman li finne amene Roshi Bhadhain ek li [6th lie]
21 ek moi ek Pravind nou fine joine zot.

22 Mo fine dire li care care ki sa somme ki pe reclamer la pou ene

23 zaffaire en cour supreme et surtou quand li en adviser a sa institution
24 la li pas capave faire dominaire pareil [7th lie and 4th insult]. Mo ti dire
25 li mo ti considere sa dominair [8th lie and 5th insult]. La line
26 coumence explike comier avocat fine travaille combine le temp li fine
27 travaille line touye so nam. (9th lie) Be mo ine dire li mo oussi mo
28 avocat mo oussi mone parraitre dans plusieurs zaffaire dans la cour
29 supreme. Mo ine dire li Mo trouve sa exorbitant (10th lie). Be quand
30 tine met li dehors bien sure ti ena en grudge contre chairman la [10th
31 lie and serious insunation about the assault on the chairman of
32 the ICTA]. Et chairman la ti fini prend ene lot avocat, nomer Oozeer.
33 Et la bas li dire nou ki Oozeer la li avocat Navin Ramgoolam [11th lie].
34 Pas conner dans ki zaffaire ti pe defan li[12th lie].Mais la mo fine ena
35 doute si pas Oozeer la pou faire so travaille convenablement[13th
36 lie].C’est vrai mo fine dire li al changer guette en lot avocat ki ena
37 lexperience ena ene long standing au barreau prend li[14th lie]Mais
38 chairman ine dire moi ki li fine faire tout so zeffort parcequi case la ti
39 pe vini dans quelque jour ki line trop tard pou gagne ene lot[15th lie].
40 Be lerla mo dire be Oozeer la laisse Oozeer la si pas capave meme
41 faire li confiance abin maintenir li meme et laisse li continuer[16th
42 lie]Mais Selman mone mo ti dire zot aller alle tombe ene d’accord lor
43 ene prix raisonable parecequi mo considere so reclamation la trop
44 fort[17th lie].

45 Cest coume sa ki noune terminer et tout le zot dimoune ki ti la capave

46 temoigner zone sorti zone aller [18th lie]. Et mo croire derriere mo le
47 dos zot fine tombe d’accord pou paye par l’heure[19th lie].Bon lerla
48 pas bizin dire ou pas pou ena aucaine control, li pou dire ki 24 hr lor
49 24 line travaille pendant plusieur mois alors mo obliger paye li.[6th
50 insult]. Voila la situation.

51 Et azordi li ena toupet sa bebet la[7th insult] pe faire banne

52 insinuation ki moi pravind soodhun ine dimane li commission [20th lie
53 and 8th insult] Ene Bachiara pareil [21st lie and 9th insult].Moi ene
54 dimoune pou ale dimane commission eke ne bebet pareil[22nd lie and
55 10th insult]. Dans mo carrier zamais is mone dimane ene commission
56 de qui que ce soi alors ene boug couma Trilochun pas capave faire
57 ban insinuation pareil[23rd lie and 10th insult]. Meme quand donne
58 contribution pour le parti tout sa jamais mo met prix jamais mo dire
59 bizin donne autant zamis mo demander ce ki dimoune donner
60 volontairement ok. Alors en boug couma Trilochun pas capave faire
61 banne insinuation pareil [24th lie and 11th insult].

62 Oui mo rappel ki li ti dire aussi ki supposer travaille l’heuretemp la mo

63 fine permette li et mone signe ene papier et ki li ena ene papier avec
64 mo signature[25th lie]. Mo mette li au defi parcequi jamais mone signe
65 aucaine papier et jamais mo fine d’accord ki li paye li par heure. Ki
66 papier ki li pe cozer[26th lie].Si ena papier la produire, montre laisse
67 nou getter si pas vraimement ena mo signature lor la ou bien li pe
68 prepare ene papier li pe fausse signature [12th insult]. Sa boug la li
69 capable de tou[13th insult]. En tout cas si li continuer dire
70 publiquement banne connerie ki li pe causer be finalement mo pou
71 bizin pren action legal contre li [14th insult and intimidation and
72 threat]. VIDEO EXTRACT END TIME 11:57
 THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

22. The Plaintiff refers to the indentified lies and insults from the aforementioned
transcript so set out his cause of action and claims.

First Insult

23. The first insult as identified in lines 1 & 2 of the above transcribed live press
conference where Defendant No. 1 refers to the Plaintiff as „fameux avocat’ in the
tone, context and manner that he said it, conveys to the audience that the Plaintiff is
an infamous lawyer. This has tainted the Plaintiff‟s professional name and image and
has caused him stress and humiliation.

First, Third and Twenty-sixth Lies (lines 4 to 7, 10 to 12 and 65 to 66 of the

transcript respectively)
24. The First, Third and Twenty-sixth lies as identified in the aforementioned transcript,
Defendant No. 1 stated that he never ever approved that the Plaintiff be paid per hour
for his work as counsel in the Emtel Case. This is a lie as explained in above.

25. Furthermore, on the 7th of April 2016 i.e. the very next day of the aforementioned
meeting in the Defendant No. 1‟s office, the Plaintiff sent an e-mail to all the ICTA‟s
Board Members highlighting all the main points of what was relevant to the Emtel
Case. The full e-mail reads as follows:

“From: Kailash Trilochun [mailto:trilochun@gmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 3:25 PM
To: tdabeesing@icta.mu
Cc: kaushik
JADUNUNDUN; dseewooruthun@govmu.org Affairs; gayleyerriah@gmail.
com Yerriah; gerard.cathan@totalmauritius.com; rnbeeharee@intnet.mu I
CTA; gerard.cathan8@gmail.com; Satish JHURRY; Ramchurn Chatoo;
Sarwansingh Purmessur; Roshan Rajroop
Subject: Re: proposed

Dear Mr. Dabeesing, Chair and Board Members,

I refer to a meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday whereby amongst

others the Chairperson of the ICTA was present. I think that other matters
discussed during the meeting does not concern you, i shall therefore
restrict myself to what is relevant for the purpose of my contract as legal
adviser and the Emtel case.

The outcome of the meeting is as follows:

1. The Prime Minister was never informed of the magnitude of the Emtel
Case. He was only told that I alone have asked for Rs. 12 million to
appear in a case. The content of my mail was neither explained nor given
to him. He did not know anything about the case especially that the claim
stands at Rs. 1.1 billion and with interest it will be substantially higher.

2. It was obvious that without any information he asked that another

counsel is retained to appear. Bearing in mind that my standard fee for a
SC case is between Rs. 150,000 to Rs. 300,000.

3. the Prime Minister made it very clear in the presence of the Chairperson
that he never asked for my contract as the legal adviser of the ICTA to be
revoked. He never said the henceforth the SLO will be the adviser of the
ICTA.

4. He has asked that I be instructed as the legal adviser immediately. As a

QC himself he understands that we are running out of time to prepare the
case.

5. We discussed in some details the points I intend to raise.

6. it was agreed that I should bill per hour.

7. I would therefore need for my reappointment (if this is the Board's

will) by way of a board's resolution. I need to reiterate that Board
Members should decide independently and without any undue influence.

8. i need to highlight the fact that the ICTA has dealt with this case
very recklessly so far. A case of this magnitude requires months of
preparation and such late instructions have put in jeopardy our
chances to succeed. We will now need to work under tremendous
pressure. The other defendants and The Plaintiff had years to
prepare this case and we are left with 24 days. The team will need to
sift through thousand of pages and do extensive research on
competition law. But we will take that challenge and endeavour to put
up the best fight possible in the circumstances.

9. I have been informed that Mr. Oozeer who was appointed by the Board
as my replacement went to see the Chief Justice for a postponement but
he was refused as I had warned you. His explanation was he will not have
enough time to prepare the case.

10. I have been very clear that billing per hour may not ultimately be in the
interest of the ICTA but this seems to be the preferred course of action.

11. II will propose an hourly rate of USD 400 for a team of 4 persons to act
in the matter, including myself. I understand that this is in line with the
current rates being practiced for the defendants in this matter. I need to
add that the urgency of the matter would have warranted a higher rate. I
have spoken to Counsel appearing for the other Defendants and I
understand that I need to be ready with the case to be heard on the merits
as the judge will take the hearing which is set down for 40 consecutive
days, irrespective of any points of law taken. The Supreme Court is
anxious not to be taxed for delay in breach of s 10(8) of the constitution.
The court of appeal has already made remarks about delays in this matter
and with such warnings, we have to deal with the case extremely
cautiously.

12. The quoted fee will be for my team which includes Mr. James Guthrie
QC to advise us on an ad hoc basis on matters of law (for those who are
unfamiliar with Mr. Guthrie's fees or any QC of his calibre he normally
charges a minimum of 500 Pounds per hr).

13. As I have stated in my mail I have already worked for two weeks in this
and put more that 100 hours of which I will cap only 100.

14. My team will need to set everything (that is possible) aside and give
priority to the case. We will be investing at least Rs. 200,000 in
mobilisation immediately.

15. We will need an initial payment of 30,000 USD (in Rs.) on account now
and will produce a fortnightly invoice with a time sheet on a fortnightly
basis. I have been informed that the other teams have been putting in 8 to
10 hrs daily for weeks now in the preparation of this case.

16. We will need the phone numbers of 2 officers to answer our calls from
9am to 9pm until 22 April and thereafter on a 24 hrs basis as from the 22
of April. I need 5 sets of the brief, 2 by tomorrow 4 pm to be delivered to
me and 3 additional copies by Monday afternoon 4 pm.

17. This matter should be treated as very urgent and please bear in mind
that this case is one of the biggest cases in before our courts in complexity
and size.

18. I wish to stress that I will refuse to respond to any mail sent by Mr.
Boodram as I am not even sure that he has taken the oath of
confidentiality and in any event this is a matter for you Mr. Dabeesing to
deal as the OIC and of course any Board Member including the
Chairperson can query any matter they want with me.

19. Thank you.

Satyawan Kailash Trilochun”

26. At point No. 6 of the above quoted e-mail, the Plaintiff made it clear that it was
agreed in that meeting that he should bill per hour for the work in the Emtel Case.

27. Furthermore, the Plaintiff highlighted at the 10th paragraph of the above quoted e-mail
that „I [the Plaintiff] have been very clear that billing per hour may not ultimately be
in the interest of the ICTA but this seems to be the preferred course of action’. One of
the Permanent Secretaries of the Prime Minister‟s Office (Mrs. D. Seewooruthun) and
the Deputy Permanent Secretary Mr. Sarwansing Parmessur were also addressed the
mail as Board Members of the ICTA.

28. The Plaintiff avers on the 12th of April 2016, the then Attorney-General and the then
Minister for Good Governance and the Minister responsible of the ICT who was
present in the meeting were copied a string of e-mails including the e-mail of the 7th
of April 2016.

29. For all the reasons given above the Plaintiff avers that Defendant No. 1 was lying in
his above quoted press conference. Those lies amount to slandering the Plaintiff
portraying him as a liar, a wicked and an abominable person who is greedy and who
abused the trust he had on him. This has had a terrible impact on the Plaintiff‟s life
and that of his family which is set out in detail below.

The second and sixth lies (lines 6 to 7 and 21 to 22 of the transcript)

30. The Plaintiff avers that the second and sixth lies as identified in the above quoted
press conference relates to Defendant No. 1 denying that he agreed for the Plaintiff to
be paid an hourly rate of the Emtel Case and that the latter brought along the Mr.
Roshi Bhadainin the said meeting held in Defendant No. 1‟s office. These lies were
designed to cover up the Defendant No. 1‟s knowledge about the agreement for the
plaintiff‟s services to be billed per hour and that there was an agreement behind his
back by the Plaintiff and Mr. Roshi Bhadain to that effect.

The fourth and seventeenth lies (line 13 to 14 or the transcript)

31. The fourth lie relates to Defendant No. 1 allegation that the Plaintiff had asked for 11
or 12 million rupees to appear in one Supreme Court Case was too expensive. The
Plaintiff refers to paragraphs 15 and 18 (v) above and avers that Defendant No. 1
knew he was lying as the quoted fee was for 3 cases not one.

32. Furthermore, the Plaintiff avers that Defendant No. 1, as a QC, should have known
that the Emtel Case with a voluminous brief and with about 800 documents to be
tendered by Emtel, Expert reports and a 40 days consecutive sitting scheduled with a
possibility that the more days are required, it was a unique case not comparable with
any other case before the Mauritian courts and that the fee was more than reasonable.

33. The Plaintiff avers that Defendant No. 1 was explained and, in any event, should have
known that the short span of time of 24 days before the scheduled date of the starting
of the trial of such a voluminous and complex case, it was a herculean task.

34. Fourthly, the Plaintiff also avers that the Emtel case dated back to issues that took
place in 1996 without even having any explanation from the ICTA‟s side or any
 testimonials or even a proper case file at the ICTA. Consequently, the price was far
too low.

35. Fifthly, the Plaintiff avers that Defendant No. 1 knew that Mauritius Telecom and
Cellplus had lawyers working on the Emtel case for 16 years at a rate of 400 USD per
hour which, by the time Defendant No. 1 had the above mentioned meeting in his
office, would have ran a lot more that Rs. 12 million. Defendant No. 1 also knew that
the quoted price even if it were for one case was low. He deliberately lied to vilify the
Plaintiff and cause him enormous prejudice.

36. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1‟s failure to put before the public during the said press
conference the magnitude and complexity of the case and the urgency it required
based on the Court of Civil Appeal judgement was deliberate. He did so to mislead
the public in general that the Plaintiff was claiming and had claimed a
disproportionate fee to make the Plaintiff become an object to spit on and for the
public to despise him. The Plaintiff avers that Defendant No. 1 achieved that end as
will be particularised below.

Second and Third Insult (lines 18 &19 of the press conference transcript)
37. The Plaintiff avers the use of the term 'fou li dehors' meaning to 'kick him out'
amounts to an insult. Defendant No. 1 is a QC and the then Prime Minister of the
Republic of Mauritius the aforementioned used terms by him was an attack on the
professional integrity or competence and amounts to an unacceptable insult. The
Plaintiff avers he was Defendant No. 1's counsel and that of his son and son-in-law
and none of them had any complaint about the Plaintiff in his capacity as their
counsel.

Seventh, Eighth and tenth Lies and Fourth and Fifth Insults (lines 24 to29 of the
transcript)
38. Defendant No. 1 statements that the fees (quoted before the meeting or after payment
by the ICTA) was an abuse were wilful lies and slanders. The Plaintiff reiterates that
during the whole meeting Defendant No. 1 did not refer to the Plaintiff in the way he
mentioned during the press conference nor did he make any such comments.
Defendant No.1 deliberately lied to make him look tough and righteous ready to
reprimand the plaintiff who was close to him to score political marks. The effect of
such slander and bad faith was disastrous for the Plaintiff and his family.

11th Lie and Insinuation as to the motive for the Plaintiff allegedly instruction to
assault Mr. B. Beeharry.
39. Defendant No. 1 callously stated that because the Chairman sacked the Plaintiff as the
legal advisor of ICTA, the latter had a grudge against him. The former chairman was
the victim of a serious assault in or about May 2016. By making the statement and
insinuations that the Plaintiff has committed the crime of giving instructions based on
an allegation made against his name (the allegation made by one Candahoo to the
effect that the Plaintiff gave instruction for the assault but which was impliedly
retracted during a negative identification exercise). This amounts to a very serious
slander whereby Defendant No. 1 had broadcast to the world that the Plaintiff had a
 motive for a serious crime. The prejudice caused to the Plaintiff and his loved ones is
beyond any monetary repair.

Twelfth to fifteenth Lies (lines 34 and 37 t0 39)

40. The Plaintiff denies having said that Counsel Oozeer had appeared for Dr. Navin
Ramgoolam, that Defendant No.1 had asked to take another counsel for the Emtel
Case and further denies that Mr. B. Beeharry stated that he had done everything but
he could not get another counsel for the Emtel Case. The Plaintiff avers that by telling
such lies, Defendant No. 1 has portrayed the Plaintiff as being wicked and has
instilled hatred against him by the Labour Party supporters. The Plaintiff further avers
that for a QC like Defendant No. 1 to conclude that he could not trust a counsel who
has appeared for Dr. Navindra Ramgoolam is an insult to the independence and
integrity of the Bar in general and all those who have appeared for Dr. Ramgoolam.
The Plaintiff avers that the lies amount to slander.

41. The Plaintiff avers that in an interview given on the 1st of September 2016 which can
be viewed on youtube at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=150&v=ikVWC6EPWXg uploaded
by lexpress.mu the Defendant No. 1 stated that the reason why the Plaintiff was re-
appointed was because the ICTA could not get another counsel as it was too late and
no one accepted the brief.

Sixteenth Lie (lines 40 and 41 of the transcript)

42. Defendant No. 1 never asked the then Chairman of the ICTA to choose the Plaintiff
because they had no choice as. The Plaintiff was reinstated as counsel because
Defendant No.1 was misinformed about the Emtel Case and according to him and
with no objection from anyone else present in that meeting he was the best counsel
for the job taking all the circumstances into consideration. This Lie amounts to
slander as the circumstances and reasons that have been given by Defendants No. 1 is
degrading.

Eighteenth Lie (lines 48 to 49 of the press conference transcript)

43. This a general lie by the Defendant No. 1 about what happened in the said meeting.
The Plaintiff avers that Defendant No. 1 in this particular statement reiterated all the
aforementioned slanders and attempting to be credible by mentioning that those
present in the meeting can testify that what he said was true.

Nineteenth Lie (lines 49 to 51)

44. This lie relates Defendant No.1‟s stating that the agreement for the Plaintiff to be paid
per hour was made behind his back. The Plaintiff maintains that it was the Defendant
No.1 himself who imposed that the Plaintiff charged for the Emtel Case on a basis of
per hour based on the reasoning that if the case is over in a couple of days then the
ICTA would not have to pay for the fix fee as originally quoted by the Plaintiff.
Defendant No. 1‟s acts of denying his involvement in the decision of hourly charge
and by instantly confirming that the fees were unreasonable, disproportionate,
abusive, morally and ethically wrong have caused the Plaintiff enormous prejudice.
Furthermore, the use of the term behind his back connotes a secretive, wicked and
 evil arrangement with some unknown individuals who cause immense damage to
plaintiff‟s reputation. The Plaintiff avers that is the reason why Defendant No. 1also
lied when he said that the Plaintiff brought along Roshi Bhadain with him.

45. The Plaintiff also avers that despite the Defendant No.1's imposing that he should be
paid per hour he invited the ICTA Board to decide on the fees to be paid
independently and without any influence. Notwithstanding the Plaintiff's warning and
explanation the Board resolved that he is paid USD 400 per hour.

The Sixth Insult (lines 47 to 49 of the transcript)

46. The defendant insults the Plaintiff‟s integrity as counsel and as an honest person by
making allegations that the Plaintiff cheated in his time recording to base his claim
against the ICTA. The Plaitiff avers that a proper time-sheet was submitted to the
ICTA for the work done and the dedicated team from the ICTA who worked with the
Plaintiff had testified the hours claimed were correct. This insult and lie amount to
slander and has caused the Plaintiff enormous harm as the Plaintiff was portrayed as
being dishonest. This has had a damaging impact on the Plaintiff‟s reputation with a
direct effect on his income. This slander had a far reaching effect in many different
aspects (inter alia in his professional, private, social and family life) of the Plaintiff‟s
life and that of his family. The Plaintiff avers that this slander was committed by the
Defendant No.1 with astounding viciousness, callousness and maliciousness and that
the stigma it created on the Plaintiff‟s name and that of his family still remains and if
not remedied by the Honourable Court and/or by a specific unqualified detailed
apology it will stick to the Plaintiff‟s his children and for the generations to come.

The Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and eleventh Insults

47. These insult relate to Defendant No. 1 referring to the Plaintiff as a beast with
outrageous cheek (toupet sa bebet la). The Defendant has also referred to the Plaintiff
as a bachiara which means a person or the worst kind, a wicked, an abominable and
evil person who should not have a respectable place in the society. The Plaintiff avers
that these Slanders have not only caused immense damage to his reputation but to that
of his family and those who are close to him. The humiliation that the plaintiff is still
suffering is unbearable. The Plaintiff also avers that Defendant No. 1 has insulted his
mother and deceased father, this harm is a further tort on the Plaintiff who has not
been able to get even one good night sleep since then. These insults have had a direct
impact on the Plaintiff income.

Twentieth, Twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third and twenty –fourth Lies

48. The Plaintiff avers that he has never made any insinuation that Defendant No. 1,
Honourable Pravind Kumar Jugnauth and S. Soodhun have asked him for any
commission. The Plaintiff avers that these lies are calculated and callous to raise
hatred amongst the supporters of the MSM Party in General. The Plaintiff avers that it
was also designed to vilify the Plaintiff to the public at large. The damages and
prejudice that the Plaintiff has suffered and is still suffering is immense both from a
psychological and professional point of view.

Twenty-fifth Lie (lines 66 to 68 of the press conference transcript)

49. The Defendant No. 1‟s lie is a statement whereby he recalled that the Plaintiff had
stated that he has a document signed by the former approving that the latter should
charge an hourly rate. The Plaintiff avers that he has never made such a statement.
The Defendant No. 1‟s statement is a slander.

The Twelfth and thirteenth Insult

50. The Defendant No. 1 insulted the Plaintiff when he stated that he may be forging a
document with the former‟s signature. This is a slander on the Plaintiff character
which had some very serious consequences to his great prejudice. The Plaintiff avers
that Defendant No.1 went further to say that the Plaintiff might have committed
forgery by stating that the Plaintiff is capable of everything meaning he is capable of
murdering, raping and giving instructions to commit an assault thus poisoning the
mind of the public in general against the Plaintiff.

The Fourteenth Insult

51. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant No. 1 insulted him that he is talking bullshit.
This statement amounts to slandering him.

Intimidation and threat

52. The Plaintiff avers that the intimidation and threat referred to in the quoted press
conference above show that Defendant No. 1, who was then the Prime Minister and
the Head of the Government, made direct threats and intimidated the Plaintiff which
amounts to a tort in the circumstances.

53. The Plaintiff avers that the newspapers and their websites and the youtube have a
wide circulation both in Mauritius and abroad and consequently the abovementioned
insulting, unfounded, untruth, defaming, threatening and intimidating statements
made by the Defendant No. 1 have been published and broadcast by the Co-
Defendants nationally and internationally.

54. The Plaintiff avers that the impugned statements ushered by Defendant No. 1 were
made with a view to harming the Plaintiff and to diminish his credibility vis- -vis the
public because, according to the Plaintiff, the said statements:-

(i) falsely conveyed to the listeners and viewers that the Plaintiff is not worthy of
being human but is a beast (“bebet”);

(ii) falsely and maliciously qualifying him as a wicked, evil, abominable and
unethical person when making use of the word bacchiara.

(iii) falsely conveyed to the listeners and viewers that the Plaintiff is a criminal when
Defendant No. 1 stated that “ou bien li pe prepare ene papier li pe fausse
signature sa boug la li capable de tout”

(iv) was designed to bring the Plaintiff into contempt or ridicule and to make the
Plaintiff the laughing stock of the members of the public at large;
 (v) was designed to show that the plaintiff‟s behaviour is of one which is below the
standard of a person of the calibre and honour as a Barrister-at-Law and the
legal advisor of the ICTA and other public bodies and therefore is not fit and
proper person to be a legal advisor or a barrister;

(vi) carries the meaning that the plaintiff is not a man capable of obtaining the
confidence of the public at large;

(vii) carries the meaning that the plaintiff is not a fit and proper person to give legal
advice, to receive clients as barrister and to fight for the interest of the public
before any court of law or other institution;

(viii) carries the meaning that the plaintiff is not a sincere and honest person both in
the performance of his duties as legal advisor and barrister; and

(ix) carries the meaning that plaintiff is a hypocrite who assumes different
contradictory roles at different times to deceive people and for his personal
interest.

55. Following the aforementioned torts the Plaintiff avers that whenever he is public
people stare at him oddly and some of them make comments like, here is the thief
going, when are you going to return the Rs. 19 million, "have you had your fill", "you
dishonest crook", "aren‟t you ashame". Similar comments are made to the Plaintiff's
family.

56. Even some members of the Bar crack jokes by telling the Plaintiff that he been
rewarded by being given Rs. 19 Million.

57. The social media are filled filthy and disturbing comments regarding the Plaintiff
which is a consequence of all or some of the aforementioned torts committed by
Defendant No.1.

58. The Plaintiff contends that the acts of the Defendant No. 1 amounts to „faute lourde’.

59. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant No. 1 committed the said „faute lourde’ whilst
being the Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, Home Affairs, Rodrigues and as such
the préposé of the Defendant No. 2 which is vicariously liable as the commettant for
the said „faute lourde’.

60. The Plaintiff avers that as a result of the „faute lourde’ committed by the Defendants,
the Plaintiff has suffered prejudice and damages which are as follows:-
(i) The Plaintiff, at the material time, was a renowned barrister and legal advisor
who was earning an average of Rs. 1,289,723 monthly;
(ii) That following the said „faute lourde’, the Plaintiff did not receive any new
client as at today and had to close his office situated at Vacoas.

61. The Plaintiff basing himself on the past 2 years that he will not have any new paid
clients and that the Defendants tort have put an end to a flourishing career. The
 Plaintiff avers that he estimates that he would have worked for another 20 years and
based on his income in 2016 he has suffered and will suffer a loss Rs. 309,533,580 as
financial loss.

62. The Plaintiff avers that he has suffered and is still suffering from the aforementioned
torts and claims Rs. 108,108,108/- for moral damages.

63. The Plaintiff avers that the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the said
„faute lourde‟ and its consequences and claims from the defendants, jointly and in
solido, the sum of Rs 417,641,688/- as damages for prejudice suffered by him as a
result of the said „faute lourde’.

64. The Plaintiff therefore prays from this Honourable Court for a judgment condemning
and ordering the abovenamed Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff, jointly and in solido,
the sum of Rs 417,641,688/-

WITH COSTS, together with interest at the legal rate as from the date of the relevant
notice of this present plaint served on the Defendants.
Take notice, you, the said Defendant, that you are hereby requested, called upon and
summoned to be and appear before the Supreme Court of Mauritius, situate at Jules
Koenig Street, Port Louis, on the day of .............................. , 2018, at 9.30
O‟clock in the morning, then and there to show cause why judgement should not be
delivered against you in the above matter.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Plaintiff abovenamed intends to adduce as
documentary evidence the hereunder described documents which can be inspected by
you, your attorney or agent on any working hours during office days and you are hereby
most formally required to admit that such documents as are stated to be originals are true
originals and those stated to have been sent, served or executed are so served, sent and
executed just as to the admissibility of the evidence on the above matter.
Warning you that should you fail to appear or to be represented on the aforesaid date and
time, the Court may deliver judgement against you in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of
the Plaint with Summons.

NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that you, the hereundernamed

parties are most formally required called upon and summoned to pay jointly
and in solido, the aforesaid sum of Rs 417,641,688/- to the abovenamed party.
WARNING YOU that in case you should fail to comply with the
requirements and exigencies of the present Notice the abovenamed party
shall file against you, the hereundernamed parties, the claim, according to
law.

Under all legal reservations.

Dated at Port-Louis, this 10th August 2018
Roshan Rajroop (Mr)
Attorney at Law
Suite No. 404, 4th Floor, Sterling Tower, La Poudrière Street, Port Louis
PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY

1. Sir Aneerood JUGNAUTH, GCSK, KCMG, QC, MP, PC service to be effected

at Ministry of Defence and Rodrigues Level 6, New Government Centre, Port
Louis
2. The State of Mauritius, service to be effected upon the Honourable
Attorney General of Renganaden Seeneevassen Building, Port Louis.