IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS

(Application for Declaration and Relief under Sections 17 and 83

of the Constitution)

In the matter of:

Shirish Hilme RUMMUN, of 2A Sir William Newton St,

Curepipe, Mauritius.

PLAINTIFF
v/s

1. The State of Mauritius, known as the Republic of Mauritius,

service to be effected on the Hon. Attorney General, of R
Seeneeevassen Building, P. Hennessy Street, Port Louis.

2. The Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Health and Quality

of Life, of 5th floor, Emmanuel Anquetil Building, SSR Street, Port
Louis.

3. The Pharmacy Board, of 10th Floor, Emmanuel Anquetil

Building, SSR Street, Port Louis

4. The Hon. Minister of Health & Quality of Life, service to be

effected at 5th floor, Emmanuel Anquetil Building, Sir
Seewoosagur Ramgoolam St, Port Louis.

5. The Hon. Attorney General & Minister of Agro-Industry, of

R Seeneevassen Building, P. Hennessy Street, Port Louis.

6. The Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, Regional Integration

and International Trade, of Level 11, Newton Tower, Sir William
Newton St, Port Louis.

7. The Commissioner of Police, of Line Barracks, Port Louis.

8. The Director of Public Prosecutions, of Garden Tower

Building, Poudriere Street Port Louis.
DEFENDANTS
In the presence of:

1. The World Health Organisation, represented by its Liaison Officer

in Mauritius, Dr Laurent Musango service to be effected on 1st Floor,
Anglo Mauritius House 1, Intendance Street, Port Louis

2. Jayarama Valayden, commonly known as Rama Valayden, former

Attorney General of the Republic of Mauritius, service to be effected
at his chambers, Sterling House, Port Louis

3. Yatindra Nath Varma, commonly known as Yatin Varma, former

Attorney General of the Republic of Mauritius, service to be effected
at his chambers, Chancery House, Port Louis

4. The Medical Council of Mauritius, One Way Floreal Road, Cite

Mangalkhan

CO-DEFENDANTS

PLAINT WITH SUMMONS

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Defendant No.1, the Republic of Mauritius.

2. Plaintiff is a law abiding citizen who has a Bachelor’s Degree in Weightlifting and
also a Master’s Degree in Sport Science from the prestigious Semmelweiss
University in Budapest Hungary.

3. Plaintiff is a former athlete who has represented Defendant No.1 in various

international weightlifting competitions since he was 17 years old, such as 2 Indian
Ocean Games, 4 African Championships, 1 African games, 1 Commonwealth
Games, 1 Olympic Games, and other international tournaments in Reunion,
Europe and Africa. Plaintiff is an Indian Ocean Games Gold medalist, African
Championship Silver medalist, and Gold medalist in various international
tournaments.

4. As a citizen of Defendant No.1, as professional sportsman and as patriot, whilst

Plaintiff was in good health, Plaintiff used to strive his utmost best to keep the
dignity of the national flag of Defendant No.1 high during international
competitions.
5. Plaintiff is also a family man and has under his care and responsibility his school
going son aged 13 years.

6. Defendant No.1 is a sovereign democratic State that obtained its independence

on the 12th of March 1968 when the UK passed the Mauritius Independence Act
on 4th March 1968. It further endowed Defendant No.1 with a Westminster model
written Constitution which guarantees to all individuals a number of fundamental
rights and freedoms in the entrenched clauses in its bills of rights contained in
Chapter Two of the Constitution. In his article entitled: “Mauritius: Constitutionalism
in a plural society” (Nov 1968), Prof S. A. De Smith, one of the framers of the
Mauritian Constitution qualified Defendant No.1 as being a genuine liberal
democracy. Defendant No.1 acceded to the status of Republic in 1991 and is
hence known as the Republic of Mauritius. Defendant No.1 used to be a former
colony of the Dutch between 1638 and 1710, then a French colony, between 1715
and 1810 and then a British colony between 1810 and 1968.

7. It is interesting to note that whilst Defendant No.1 was a French colony, the then
Legislature known as L’ Assemblee Coloniale de L’ Ile de France sitting in what is
now Court No.2 of the Supreme Court, had, ever since the XIV Thermidor An II,
(1st August 1794), proclaimed that the citizens of the then colony “ont la jouissance
de tous leurs droits naturels et imprescriptibles exposés dans la declaration des
Droits présentée au peuple Français en juin 1793” which Declaration, inter alia,
sets out in its articles 1, 2, 4, 5 :

Article 1
Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et égaux en droits. Les distinctions
sociales ne peuvent être fondées que sur l' utilité commune.

Article 2
Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et
imprescriptibles de l'homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté, et
la résistance à l'oppression.

Article 4
La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui : ainsi,
l'exercice des droits naturels de chaque homme n'a de bornes que celles qui
assurent aux autres membres de la société la jouissance de ces mêmes droits.
Ces bornes ne peuvent être déterminées que par la loi.

Article 5
La loi n'a le droit de défendre que les actions nuisibles à la société. Tout ce qui
n'est pas défendu par la loi ne peut être empêché, et nul ne peut être contraint
à faire ce qu'elle n'ordonne pas.
8. It is also interesting that when the British took over of the island in 1810, they
pledged to safeguard in Article 8 of the Acte de Capitulation of 3rd December 1810
“que les habitants conserveront leurs religions, lois et coutumes”. This undertaking
in the treaty was subsequently re-affirmed by the Proclamation of 5th December
1810, wherein it was stated that “Les mêmes lois et les mêmes usages en vigueur
jusqu’à ce jour seront aussi observées”.

9. The Constitution further recognises that fundamental rights exist prior to the
Constitution, as the opening words of Section 3 of the Constitution starts with the
following “It is hereby recognised and declared that in Mauritius there have existed
and shall continue to exist without discrimination…”

10. In relation to the definition of fundamental rights and/ or natural rights the Supreme
Court once observed:

“When we deal with what are now commonly called human or fundamental
rights it is important to remember that these rights have been known for many
centuries as natural rights and have been recognized and enforced as such by
the courts of many countries. Even before the Stoic philosophers formulated
the theory of natural law, the citizens of certain Greek states had enjoyed such
rights as equal freedom of speech equality before the law and equal respect for
all. In the United States of America, ten amendments to the Constitution were
passed by Congress in 1791. They came to be known as the Bill of Rights and
were regarded as forming part of the Constitution. In France, a Declaration of
the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was made on the 26 th August, 1789, and
was annexed to the Constitution in 1791. This Declaration was affirmed in the
Preamble of the 1946 Constitution. In the United Kingdom, the law relating to
the liberty of the subject is embedded in the common law”.

11. Defendant No.1 is plighted to democracy as provided in Section 1 of the

Constitution. In relation to the definition of democracy, the Supreme Court once
observed:

“What then is this species of democracy to which we are plighted? There can
be no doubt that our Constitution-makers by embodying in it much of the
constitutional practice and principles of the United Kingdom, aimed at giving
Mauritius a democratic form of government closely akin to that enjoyed by the
British people. There can be equally no doubt that by incorporating most of the
fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual guaranteed by the European
Convention on Human Rights, they have introduced into the Constitution itself,
as an integral part of it, the undertaking given by the signatory States (among
which the United Kingdom and the several then dependent territories, including
 Mauritius, on whose behalf the convention was signed) to respect the
fundamental principles of democracy”.

12. Defendant No.1 is supposed to protect fundamental rights and civil liberties of all
individuals, amongst the right to personal liberty which remains a sacrosanct right
is protected under Sections 3 and 5 of the Constitution. In relation to the right to
personal liberty, on one occasion the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
which is the highest Court of Defendant No.1 observed the following :

Two points may be made on sections 3 and 5 of the Constitution. First, they
reflect in very explicit terms the tension which may exist between the rights of
the individual, viewed in isolation, and the wider interests of the community as
a whole. The Constitution seeks to strike a judicious balance between the
two. Secondly, sections 5(1) and (3) and section 10(2)(a) bear a very close
resemblance to articles 5(1) and (3) and 6(2) of the European Convention on
Human Rights.. It is indeed noteworthy that the European Convention was
extended to Mauritius while it was still a Crown Colony, before it became
independent under the 1968 Constitution: see European Commission of
Human Rights, Documents and Decisions (1955-1957), p 47. Thus the rights
guaranteed to the people of Mauritius under the European Convention were
rights which, on independence, “have existed and shall continue to exist” within
the terms of section 3. This is a matter of some significance: while Mauritius is
no longer a party to the European Convention or bound by its terms, the
Strasbourg jurisprudence gives persuasive guidance on the content of the
rights which the people have enjoyed and should continue to enjoy.

13. Defendant No. 2 is a civil servant and is the employee/ préposé of Defendant No.
1 and is responsible for the administration of the Ministry of Health and Quality of
Life and is furthermore statutorily endowed by virtue of Section 7 of the Dangerous
Drugs Act 2000 to authorize a person to cultivate, produce, manufacture, acquire,
import, use or hold plants, substances and preparations in Schedules I, II and III
of the Dangerous Drugs Act in quantities not exceeding those strictly required for
the purposes of medical or scientific research or teaching or the use of forensic
science services.

14. Defendant No. 3 is, by virtue of Section 4(1)(b) of the Pharmacy Act, empowered
to, subject to the approval of Defendant No. 4, exercise control over the
manufacture, importation, distribution, sale and possession of any drug, poison,
dangerous drug and psychotropic substance.

15. Defendant No.4 is a minister forming part of the Executive and the Cabinet under
whose aegis Defendants Nos 2 and 3 operate and he is assigned with the
responsibility for the subject of health as per the Dangerous Drugs Act.
16. Defendant No.5 is a minister forming part of the Executive and the Cabinet and he
is the principal legal adviser to the Government of Mauritius as provided in Section
69 of the Constitution.

17. Defendant No.6 is a minister forming part of the Executive and the Cabinet and
the portfolio for human rights and civil liberties has been entrusted to him by the
Government of the day.

18. Defendant No.7 is a public officer and employee of Defendant No.1 and an officer
of the Executive. By virtue of Section 71 of the Constitution, the Mauritius Police
Force falls under his command and he is solely responsible for determining the
use and controlling the operations of the Force which, inter alia, usually consist of
arresting individuals who contravene or are suspected of having contravened the
law, lodging provisional charges against them and carrying out investigations prior
to sending case files to Defendant No.8 for advice or for lodging formal charges
after police enquiries being conducted by police officers.

19. Defendant No.8 is a public officer and employee of Defendant No.1 and is an
officer of the Executive. By virtue of Section 72 of the Constitution, he is
responsible for and exercise control over the conduct of prosecutions in the
Republic of Mauritius. The decision to institute, take over, continue or discontinue
criminal proceedings rests solely on him though he may at times delegate such
power to other person(s) acting in accordance with his general or specific
instructions.

20. Co-defendant No.1 is a specialised agency of the United Nations that is concerned
with international public health. It was established on 7 th April 1948. On a global
scale, the UN passes conventions and international treaties among member
states. The Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs of 1961 and the Convention on
Psychotropic Substances of 1971 are both examples of such international treaties
designed to prohibit production and supply of specific drugs except under licence
for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research and to control
psychoactive drugs respectively amongst member states. Such international
conventions have been incorporated in domestic legislations. The Dangerous
Drugs Act 1986 and the Dangerous Drugs Act 2000 are examples of legislations
which are inspired from such conventions.

21. Co-defendant No.2 is a scholar and a seasoned human rights lawyer and in the
recent past, has held the constitutional post of Attorney General and has been the
principal legal adviser to the Government of Defendant No.1 between 2005 and
2010.

22. Co-defendant No.3 is also a scholar and a human rights lawyer and in the recent
past, has held the constitutional post of Attorney General and has been the
 principal legal adviser to the Government of Defendant No.1 between 2010 and
2014.

23. Co-defendant No.4 is an association of professional medical practitioners set up

under the Medical Council Act which is inter alia, vested with the function to advise
Defendant No.5 on matters pertaining to the practice of medicine by virtue of
Section 12 of the said Act.

PLAINTIFF’ S ILLNESS

24. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with Male Breast Cancer in December 2018 after he
noticed he had a lump on the left breast while taking a bath.

25. Plaintiff had a lumpectomy carried out in the same December 2018, whereby the
tumor was removed and diagnosed as “Invasive Duct carcinoma, grade 3,
Estrogen +.

26. Plaintiff was informed by local doctors that he had to do a mastectomy, followed
by chemotherapy. Considering the seriousness of the situation, Plaintiff had
contacted various institutes and doctors in India, Israel, South Africa, England,
France and Mauritius for help.

27. Plaintiff avers that he sought medical help from various clinics around the world as
well as in Mauritius but no doctor could affirm that he would recover completely
and they all recommended surgery and chemotherapy which he believes are both
invasive and unnatural treatments in view that Plaintiff witnessed the ordeal that
his late mother Fatima Rummun went through before passing away after
undergoing such treatment for breast cancer in November 2013. Plaintiff came
across many cases where doctors informed patients that conventional treatment
is not effective and recommended patients to try alternative treatment.

28. Plaintiff developed serious apprehension towards conventional treatments such as

mastectomy and chemotherapy as he has seen both his late mother Fatima
Rummun dying from breast cancer after the spread of the breast to her stomach,
which caused her death following such treatment. Plaintiff’s late grandmother
Amina Bhabha and late grandfather Ahmad Bhabha also died from breast cancer.

29. Plaintiff decided to follow Ayurvedic and Homeopathic treatments which he was
recommended and which he followed in India after travelling over there from 21st
February to 23rd February 2019.
30. Plaintiff made in-depth research from the internet, medical journals and by
contacting and interacting with researchers about the benefits of cannabis oil prior
to start treatment based on the use of cannabis oil.

31. Plaintiff travelled to South Africa to follow proper medical treatment based on the
use of medical cannabis on the first occasion from 3rd March to 1st of April 2019
and a second occasion from 29th April to 28th May 2019.

32. Plaintiff was informed in South Africa that his illness was genetic, however this was
proven wrong after taking the Braca 1 and Braca 2 test.

33. Plaintiff was further prescribed with cannabinoid based medical treatment and he
has been following cannabis oil treatment which is a full extract compound of THC
(Tetrahydocannabinol) and CBD oil which is ingested orally during his visits in
South Africa.

34. Plaintiff is now in contract with various researchers and medical practitioners who
have extensive knowledge and are well versed in their field of research amongst
Professor Cristina Sanchez Garcia who discovered that THC is the main
compound that destroys cancer cells.

35. Plaintiff then travelled to Switzerland from 3 rd October to 25th October 2019 for
homeopathic treatment which also included use of cannabinoid (CBD) which is
readily available in local pharmacies over there.

36. Plaintiff recently travelled to South Africa for further treatment in view that the use
of cannabis is prohibited in Mauritius.

37. Plaintiff had written to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health and
Quality of Life, pursuant to Section 7 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, to request
permission to import medicinal cannabis and/or to cultivate cannabis plants and to
extract cannabinoids (CBD) for his personal medicinal use on the 5th of August
2019.

38. Plaintiff was informed, by virtue of a letter dated the 23rd of September following
his letter sent on the 5th of August 2019 from the Ministry of Health & Quality of
life, that his request to import medicinal cannabis or to cultivate cannabis plants
and to extract cannabinoids (CBD) for his personal medicinal use has not been
acceded to on account that-

a) Cannabis is listed in the First Schedule, Part I of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
therefore, its cultivation is prohibited as per section 5 of the Act; and
 b) Section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act stipulated that: “No person shall
cultivate the opium poppy, coca bush or cannabis plant”.

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

39. Plaintiff avers the above decision of Defendants is arbitrary, unfair, unconstitutional
and that Plaintiff’s constitutional right to cure himself through natural means which
are lawfully available in other countries like South Africa, Lesotho and the United
States of America is being denied to him by Defendants, in view of the provisions
of the Dangerous Drugs Act and in view of the attitude of Defendants Nos 2 to 4.

40. Plaintiff avers that owing to cannabis based treatment in South Africa and in
Switzerland, his health has been improving. He also suffers from diabetes type 2
which has been cured and as per his medical reports, his cancer is under control.

41. Plaintiff considers that approved medical treatments such as chemotherapy and
radiation therapy are invasive and are harmful with major side effects to the human
body as opposed to Full Extract Cannabis Oil which has no such effects. He further
considers mastectomy as a harmful mutilation exercise.

42. Plaintiff avers that the cost of undergoing such treatment overseas constitutes a
heavy financial burden on him and that as to-date he is heavily indebted. Besides
the cost of medical treatment, Plaintiff has to cater for accommodation expenses,
living expenses, air fares. For the purpose of his treatment overseas, Plaintiff has
roughly spent around Rs 3 million over numerous trips abroad in quest of
treatment.

THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS

43. Plaintiff avers that he has been reading about cannabis in medical journal and
botany and came to know that cannabis plants have been growing naturally on the
surface of the earth for the past 28 million years and that the medicinal use of
cannabis goes as far back as 10,000 years ago in various civilisations.

44. In Mauritius, the use/ consumption and cultivation of cannabis was not prohibited
in the early 18th century. It is only in 1840, after abolition of slavery and with the
arrival of indentured labourers from India, whilst Defendant No.1 was under the
British Rule, that the introduction, sale and cultivation of Gandia in the colony was
prohibited by virtue of Ordinance No. 2 of 1840. The preamble reads as follows:

“Whereas it results from the reports made to the Governor that a plant or herb
commonly called and known by the name of Gandia (cannabis indiae) is daily
 imported and openly sold in the Colony, to a considerable extent, the use of which,
being carried to excess among the labouring class, is productive of the most
pernicious effects, often exciting them to disorderly conduct and in some cases
causing death.”

45. Plaintiff avers that the prohibition of cannabis by the British Government is based
on a legal fiction that consumption of cannabis leads to disorderly conduct and can
cause death. As to-date there is no scientific research to establish the
dangerousness or toxicity of such plant. All dangerous drugs legislation prohibiting
the use of cannabis are based on legal fiction about the dangerousness or toxicity
of such plant.

46. Plaintiff further avers that on 24th January 2019, the Director General of Co-
defendant No.1 sent a letter to the Secretary of the United Nations recommending,
among other things, that cannabis and associated substances be rescheduled in
the international drug control framework. The changes are reported to facilitate the
trade of these substances for medicinal and scientific purposes. The
recommendations are inter alia to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from
Schedule IV (very harmful) to Schedule 1 (not particularly harmful).

47. Plaintiff avers that as to-date in many countries of the world, amongst Argentina,
Australia, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Lesotho, Lithuania, Luxemburg,
Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, San Marino, South Africa, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United
Kingdom, Uruguay, Zimbabwe and in 33 states in the United States of America,
medical cannabis has been legalised. Cannabis and cannabinoids are being
prescribed as treatment by physicians around the world for their patients be it for
patients suffering from cancer, HIV Aids, chronic pain, epilepsy or other diseases.

PLAINTIFF’ S RIGHT TO TREATMENT

48. Plaintiff avers that as a cancer patient, he is on a daily basis, struggling for his
survival, and that he should be allowed the option to seek medical treatment of his
choice. By virtue of the Provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act, Defendant No.1 is
depriving Plaintiff of the opportunity of treating and curing himself from cannabis in
Mauritius. In the event that Plaintiff cultivates cannabis plants or imports
cannabinoid, he runs the risk of being arrested and provisionally charged by the
officers of Defendant No.1 who are under the sole command and authority of
Defendant No.7 and Plaintiff further runs the risk of being prosecuted by Defendant
No.8 or the latter’s officers and may eventually be inflicted a custodial sentence by
the Courts resulting in loss of liberty. Plaintiff considers that inflicting a custodial
sentence for such acts amounts to subjecting him to inhuman and degrading
treatment.
49. Plaintiff avers that the concept of protection for human rights and civil liberties is a
universal concept and the offence of criminalizing possession/ cultivation of
cannabis medicinal/ medical/ therapeutic use in private infringes his entrenched
constitutional right to life, liberty and privacy and that same is not reasonably
justifiable in a democratic society.

50. Plaintiff is advised that the presumption that possession/ cultivation of cannabis for
medicinal/ medical/ therapeutic use in private per se amounts to possession/
cultivation of dangerous drugs as per Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 29, 30 and 34 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act together with Part 1 of First Schedule and that such
irrebuttable presumption of law that cannabis is a dangerous drug infringes his
constitutional protection of presumption of innocence and violates the principle of
equality of arms and due process of the law.

51. Plaintiff is advised that possession/ cultivation of cannabis for personal

consumption in private and/ or for medicinal/ medical/ therapeutic use in private,
should be tantamount to possession of innocuous article whereby the Applicant is
being unfairly deprived of the opportunity of adducing any evidence to justify such
possession and the Courts are precluded from assessing the reasonableness of
any such justification in view of the actual legislation, whilst on the other hand, the
prosecution is being dispensed of and does not have the least onus to prove that
the alleged plant or leaf matter or seed amounts to possession of dangerous/
harmful/ toxic substance, the more-so that as to-date, there is no official/ scientific/
forensic research nor study nor report by powers that be, which establishes the
dangerousness/ harmfulness/ toxicity of such plant or leaf matter or seed.

52. Plaintiff is advised that Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 30, 34 of the Dangerous Drugs Act
together with Part 1 of First Schedule in relation to possession/ cultivation of
cannabis for medicinal/ medical use in private are not reasonably justifiable in a
democratic society and that same infringe Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 of the
Constitution and in view of the above, Plaintiff is entitled to constitutional relief
under Section 17 of the Constitution; and that the aforesaid legislations should be
declared null and void inasmuch as same contravene the Applicant’s entrenched
constitutional rights and cannot be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

53. Plaintiff is further advised that the criminalization of possession/ cultivation of

cannabis for medicinal/ medical use in private under Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 29, 30 and
34 of the Dangerous Drugs Act together with Part 1 of First Schedule is not
consonant with the concept of peace, order and good government as per Section
45(1) of the Constitution or that same should be declared unconstitutional under
Section 83 of the Constitution, and this when compared and contrasted with the
modern trend as to international democratic norms and human rights standards as
obtained in other jurisdictions around the globe amongst: Australia, Austria,
 Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Georgia, Jamaica, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico,
Netherlands, Portugal, Peru, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Switzerland, Thailand, UK, Uruguay and in some states in the USA (including
Alaska, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada,
New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington), as well as when viewed with the recent
pronouncements of the Constitutional Courts in relation to the constitutionality of
possession of cannabis for personal consumption in private and/or for medicinal/
medical/ therapeutic use and/ or for religious or cultural use by an adult in a private
dwelling, for instance in the Republic of South Africa.

PRAYER

54. Plaintiff hereby seeks redress and prays for relief under Section 17 of the
Constitution inasmuch as his rights under Chapter 2 of the Constitution are being
infringed. Plaintiff furthermore, also prays for relief under Section 83 of the
Constitution in view that Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 29, 30 and 34 of the Dangerous Drugs
Act together with Part 1 of First Schedule is in violation of Section 45(1) of the
Constitution as same criminalise the possession of medicinal cannabis and the
cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purpose.

55. Plaintiff therefore prays from this Honourable Court for a judgment declaring that
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 29, 30 and 34 of the Dangerous Drugs Act together with Part 1
of First Schedule in so far as possession of cannabis for medical or medicinal
purpose and/ or cultivation of cannabis for medical or medicinal purpose and/ or
importation of medicinal cannabis or cannabinoid or cannabis oil as being
unconstitutional as same are in breach of Sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 16, 45 of
the Constitution as Plaintiff is being unfairly and unjustly being deprived of his
treatment.

You, the above-named Defendants are hereby required, called upon and
summoned to appear before the Supreme Court of Mauritius situate at Jules
Koenig Street, Port Louis, on the ……............ day of …………..…………………..
2020 at 9.30 am to answer the above-named Plaintiff in the above matter.

TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff electing his legal domicile in the office of the
undersigned Attorney at law, intends to adduce in evidence at the hearing of the
above matter and on any other day or days to which the matter may be postponed,
the relevant documents which can be inspected by you, your Attorney or agent at
the office of the undersigned Attorney-at-Law during office hours and you are
hereby required to admit that such documents as are specified to be original are
true original, that such as are specified to be extracts are true extracts and that
such as are specified to be copies are true copies and have been written, signed
and executed as they purport to have been, saving all just exceptions as to the
admissibility of the said documents as evidence in the above matter.

Description of Document (not attached)

1 Medical Reports

2 Correspondences

3 Cannabis on a legalise tour by A Kader Jackaria – Lexpress.mu

8th Feb 2019
4 Medicinal Cannabis under prescription – House of Commons
Library – 17th May 2019 by Dr Sarah Barber Nikki Sutherland

AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE YOU, the above-named Defendants and Co-
defendants that in case you fail to appear or to be represented, may result in
the Court delivering judgment against you in favour of Plaintiff in terms of the
Plaint.

Issued by Plaintiff above-named and styled at the domicile elected by him in

the office of the undersigned Attorney-at-Law situate at 4th Floor, Sterling
House, Lislet Geoffroy Street, Port Louis.

Under all legal reservations

Dated at Port Louis, this 23rd December 2019.

Me. Rajendra APPA JALA

Of 4th Floor, Sterling House,
Lislet Geoffroy Street, Port Louis.
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Instructing Sanjeev Teeluckdharry, A Juwaheer & A Goodary of Counsel