The case:

The applicant in each of the three applications were bookmakers and accordingly licensees under the Act. The Chief Executive of the Gambling Regulatory Authority (the respondent in this matter) issued a letter dated 10 November 2015 to all three applicants (licensees) informing them of its decision to reduce the number of additional places of business outlets operated by them to a maximum of 10 as at the end of June 2016 and not to renew the licenses in respect of any surplus outlets.

However, this decision was based on a decision of the Government and the letter referred to above simply quoted the decision of the government.

The application for review was resisted at the leave stage and after hearing arguments, the Court granted leave for the review to proceed on its merits.

Decision of the court:

The court quashed the decision of the respondent.

The court referred to Section 96 and 100 of the Act which empowers the Gambling Regulatory Authority to issue licenses and to give directions to a licensee in relation to the conduct of their business under the Act. However, Sections 96 and 100 cannot be read independently as the exercise of that power is to be found under section 92 of the said Act which provides that the Minister may, under specific conditions, order the Board to limit the number of licences. Such an order shall be binding for such geographical area or for such period as may be specified in that order.

The issue before the court was “whether the respondent has properly exercised the discretion that the law has bestowed upon it or has acted under dictation and thus fettered its discretion”.

The court also referred to Section 7 (3) of the Act which provides that the Minister may, in relation to the exercise by the Gambling Regulatory Board of any of its powers under this Act, give such directions of a general character to the Board as the Minister considers necessary in the public interest. On the basis of Section 7 (3) of the Act, the Court held that “the decision of the Government as conveyed in the above-quoted letter is certainly of a different character. Otherwise, there would have been no need for section 92”.

Moreover, the court concluded that the respondent did not exercise independent judgment while exercising its discretion when deciding to reduce the number of additional places of business outlets and not to review the licenses in respect of any surplus outlets. The court was of the view that the express language of the letter of 10 November 2015 was clearly indicative of the fact that the decision was not that of the respondent. The latter was simply the mouthpiece of the Government which in fact took the decision and had surrendered the discretion vested in it by law to the Government. The court admitted that the Minister may decide to limit the number of licenses when considerations of public interests so require, but that does not absolve the respondent of exercising his own judgment.

This decision reminds all Statutory Bodies of their duty to exercise their own judgment and not act under dictation.

Appleby appeared for the applicant Stevenhills Ltd and was represented by Yahia Nazroo.

Locations

Mauritius

Services

Dispute Resolution

Type

Insight

Share
Twitter LinkedIn Email Save as PDF
More Publications
14 May 2024

What are the tools to aid the arbitral process to combat the undesirable effects of parallel litigation?

The fundamental aspect of arbitration as an alternative dispute mechanism is that despite parties’...

29 Apr 2024

Appleby Mauritius Quarter One Newsletter 2024

As we navigate through this dynamic year, Appleby's first Mauritius newsletter of 2024 sees our team...

29 Apr 2024

Receivership: an enforcement mechanism for lenders

In a world of business, unforeseen circumstances can often arise that lead a company to financial di...

29 Apr 2024

The JCPC reaffirmed the exception to the bank secrecy rule

Further to the oral judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) on 06 July 2023 a...

26 Apr 2024

Regulation of Moneylending in Mauritius

Moneylending is a crucial credit device in the world of financial services which plays a significant...

26 Apr 2024

Katra Holdings Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank (Mauritius) Ltd [2024] UKPC 8 - case summary

The Privy Council set aside an appeal challenging a winding up order of a Mauritian company, Katra H...

26 Apr 2024

Statutory Demands - a Review of Recent Decisions

INSOLVENCY - The bankruptcy division of Mauritian Supreme Court re-affirms the test to determine the...

26 Apr 2024

Directors' Duties in the face of insolvency

The duties of directors in relation to companies in Mauritius are laid out under the Companies Act 2...

16 Apr 2024

Absence of assets in Mauritius – not a bar to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment

On 12 April 2024, the Mauritian Supreme Court confirmed in Hobler v Harker 2024 SCJ 159, that an app...

12 Apr 2024

Maximising Efficiency in Fund Termination Through Liquidating Trusts in Mauritius

When it comes to terminating a fund licensed under the laws of Mauritius (Company), one of the key r...