Supreme Court of Mauritius, 17 avril 2026, 2026 INT 87 – Eighth Wonder v Maria Teresa De Freitas & Anor

Eighth Wonder v Maria Teresa De Freitas & Anor

2026 INT 87

CN: 181/21 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (CIVIL DIVISION) In the matter of:- Eighth Wonder Plaintiff v/s 1. Maria Teresa De Freitas 2. Olivier Nicolas Bernard Defendants RULING: 1. As per the Amended Proecipe, the Plaintiff is praying for a judgment condemning and ordering the Defendants jointly and solido to pay to it the sum Rs1,266,400/- made up as follows: (a) Prejudice suffered Rs266,400/- (b) Damages Rs1,000,000/-

2. The Defendants have raised a plea in limine which reads as follows:

“Terence Charles Smith, a material party to this case, has not been joined as a party to the present matter as such this Honourable Court shall not be able to adjudicate and determine the issues raised in his absence. The Defendants therefore move that the present action be stayed until such time as the said Terence Charles Smith is made a party to these proceedings.”

3. In court, both Counsel made it clear that the motion of stayed of the proceeding is not being insisted upon but rather the Court is being asked to determine whether Mr Terence Charles Smith is an interested party which should be joined in the present matter.

4. I have duly considered the oral and written submissions of both Counsel.

5. It is trite law that “objections cannot properly be heard in limine unless the objector accepts- for the purposes of argument only- all the facts alleged by the plaintiff but argues that, even accepting them, his opponent cannot succeed. Where the objection is based on disputed facts the court must hear the evidence before it can rule on the point in law; the objection cannot be taken in limine”, vide Rama v Vacoas Transport Co Ltd (1958) MR 184.

6. Consequently, for the purpose of determining the present Plea in limine raised by the Defendants I will only consider the Amended Proecipe and not the Plea on the merits in order to determine whether Mr Smith is an interested party that needs to be joined to the present proceeding.

7. I refer to the case of The Financial Services Commission v. Independent Commission Against Corruption & Ors [2020 SCJ 164], in which the Court held:

“… the Court will permit only necessary and proper person(s) or legal entity(ies) who has an interest in the matter to be made a party to the proceedings in order to enable it to reach an effectual and complete determination of the questions or issues arising in the proceedings”.

8. Furthermore, in the case of Canarapen v. Anne [1999 SCJ 293], the Supreme Court held:

“a party is properly joined if his presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter”.

9. In the case of Mungur v. The Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes [2023 SCJ 77], the Court of Civil Appeal held that the “non-joinder of

parties is not necessarily fatal to the cause of action” and the Court may “proceed to deal with the matter in controversy as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.”

10. According to the Amended Proecipe, the Plaintiff is the owner of the Prosche in lite and same was allocated and entrusted to the Plaintiff’s director, Mr Terence Charles Smith to be used. The Amended Proecipe then goes on to state the relationship between Mr Smith and Defendant No 1 and how both Defendants become in possession of the car.

11. As per paragraph 18 of the written submission on behalf of the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the Court is being asked to determine the following issues:

i. “Whether the Defendants were in unlawful possession and use of the vehicle; ii. Whether the Defendants acted negligently or wrongfully in their use and maintenance of the Prosche; and iii. Whether the Plaintiff suffered damages and prejudice as a consequence of the Defendants acts and doings.”

12. In order to determine how the Defendants were in possession and/or use of the vehicle, I will have to consider the relationship between the Mr Terence Charles Smith and the Defendant No 1 as averred by the Plaintiff itself in its Amended Proecipe. It is only then will the Court be able to state whether the possession and the use of the car was lawful or unlawful. The only link between the Defendant No 1 and Plaintiff is Mr Terence Charles Smith. Consequently, I find that Mr Terence Charles Smith is an interested party in the present case. Conclusion:

13. In light of the above finding that Mr Terence Charles Smith is an interested party to the present case and in light of the case of Mungur A. A v The Municipal Council of Quatre Bornes [2023 SCJ 77], I find it apt to invite the Plaintiff to take a stand in the present case.

U. Rawat Neerooa Magistrate Intermediate Court Delivered this 17 th of April 2026