In Desai v Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Land Transport Development & The State of Mauritius 2025 SCJ 277, the Supreme Court upheld a point of law which the Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Land Transport Development (‘Ministry’) had raised. The Ministry argued that the Supreme Court was not the appropriate forum to resolve the dispute between Mr Desai and the Ministry and the State of Mauritius by reason of an arbitration clause in their contract.
Mr Desai, a professional architect, was awarded a global consultancy contract to refurbish the old Parliament House in Mauritius. As the works extended beyond the completion period, his services were extended to provide what were termed as ‘additional resources’ and ‘supervisory services’ for the additional period required to complete the refurbishment. Despite an agreement to pay him the amount of MUR 3,361,628.70 plus VAT (±USD 74261) for the extended period, the Ministry and the State of Mauritius failed to do so. Hence Mr Desai’s claim before the Supreme Court for MUR 3,361,628.70 plus VAT (±USD 74261) to which an additional amount of MUR 2 million (± 44,182) was added as damages.
Mr Desai argued that the arbitration clause governed the initial contract only and for which he had already been paid. His argument was that the claim before the Supreme Court was not captured by the arbitral clause as it related to additional resources and supervisory services that were provided during the extended period. These were therefore outside the scope of the initial contract.
The Supreme Court turned down Mr Desai’s interpretation of the initial contract which declared at (i) clause 3.03 that “the contract shall continue until the services have been completely rendered” and, (ii) at clause 6.06 that the contract actually provided for an extended period for performance as it recited that “in the event of circumstances arising which could not have been reasonably foreseen, …/… the whole cost of revising, amending or reproducing documents to bring the work of the Consulting Architect at the modified state, shall be the subject of additional payment, calculated on a time basis as set out at Appendix A together with any disbursement incurred subject to sub clause 4.09.”
The Supreme Court took the view that the language of the contract made it clear that parties had intended that there would be a single contract to govern their relationship. Furthermore, their preferred mode of dispute resolution was arbitration. Accordingly, the claim before the Supreme Court was set aside for the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration.
The recent approach of the Mauritian Supreme Court reflects yet again its unequivocal standpoint to arbitration, whether international or domestic. The decision in Desai (supra) continues to be a strong signal to the business community both globally and locally that Mauritius as a jurisdiction continues its commitment to arbitration and remains an attractive jurisdiction for investors. Indeed, one of the landmarks which investors consider when assessing the business friendly environment factor of a jurisdiction is the robustness of its judicial system and its understanding and adaptability to the demands of the business community.
