Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 avril 2026, 2026 INT 103 – Police v Ghannoo

1

Police v Ghannoo

2026 INT 103

Cause No. 326/14 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (CRIMINAL DIVISION) In the matter of:- Police v 1. Wahed Ghannoo 2. Friditz Gregory Cornell

Judgment Accused no.1 was charged for the offence of receiving payment as a developer in respect of an agreement for sale of land without being issued with a morcellement permit under count 1 of the Information in breach of sections 8(1)(b) and 11 of the Morcellement Act. Accused no.2 is being charged for the offence of drawing up a document witnessing an agreement to sell land comprised in a morcellement in breach of section 8(2) and 11 of the Morcellement Act. The case was dismissed for want of prosecution against Accused no.1 as he has passed away. Accused no.2 pleaded not guilty to count 2 of the information and was represented by counsel at the trial. Analysis of the evidence on record Witness no.4 produced 2 defence statements recorded on the 17 th November 2011 and 5 th August 2013 which were marked as Document AG and AG1 respectively. In Document AG, Accused no.1 acknowledged to be the author of Documents 6 and 7 marked as Documents AM and AN respectively. It was an agreement between the seller and buyer of land. He stated that it was at the request of Accused no.1 that he made two agreements for the sale of 2 portions of land in favour of witness no.7. He stated that both parties took cognisance of the 2 documents and they signed them in his presence and witness no.7 remitted to Accused no.1 a cheque on 2 different occasions.

In Document AG1, Accused no.2 denied aiding Accused no.1. He prepared the 2 documents on a complimentary basis and he did not ask any payment for the work. He stated that when he became aware that Accused no.1 took money from witness no.7 and did not completed the sale of the lands he reproached him and asked him to return the money. If he would have known the intention of Accused no.1, he would have not prepared the 2 bordereaux. According to witness no.1, Accused no.1 hold an undivided right of a property of a property and the seller was one Burosee which was transcribed on the 19 th October 1983 (see Document AA). There were 13 persons who purchased the 1 arpent and all 13 persons purchased the land in indivision such that none of those 13 purchasers had a distinct and specific plot of land. He also stated that an undivided right of a property has been sold to Accused no.1 by one Abdool Raouf Jhingut (see Document AB) and which was transcribed on the 12 th July 1999. he confirmed that the said Abdool Raouf Jhingut was the holder of 1/13 th undivided rights which he sold to Accused no.1. He confirmed that as per his record there is no subdivision between the 12 owners. He stated that he cannot say whether the land of 1 arpent has been subject to a partage en nature between the 12 owners. Witness no.2 stated that the letter dated the 9 th November 2004 (Document AC) is addressed to the care of Accused no.1 and she cannot say why as the main file at the Ministry of Land and Housing is untraceable. She stated as per the reconstituted file, no morcellement permit has been issued. She stated that she cannot answer how a co-owners can sell their shares. She stated in cross examination, that the developer is the applicant as per the Morcellement Act. She admitted that there is a time limit of 12 months failing which the application will be set aside if the applicant does not satisfy the conditions. She is not aware whether there was another application. Witness no.5 produced the plan he drew following a visit of the locus on the 10 th August 2011 under the instructions of witness no.4 upon indication of Accused no.1. he stated that plots A and B were shown to him by Accused no.1 which was marked as Document AE. He stated that he had proposed to sell them. In cross examination, he stated that he did not know the area of the plots. He did not take the exact measurements of the land. He stated that plots A and B were unoccupied. There are no access road to plots A and B. he stated that access was means of a track which was irregular. Witness no.4 produced 3 photographs taken by witness no.6 on the 10 th August 2011 upon his instructions and which were marked as Document AH(AH1 to AH3). He also produced the statement he put up to explain the photographs which was marked as Document AG. He also stated that witness no.7 produced to him several documents i.e.: An extract of L’ Express dated the 15 th April 2010 Document AK); Title deed transcription TV 2648/41 (Document AL); Agreement dated 23 rd April 2010 between Accused no.1 and witness no.7 (Document AM); Agreement dated 27 th May 2010 between Accused no.1 and witness no.7 (Document AN). In cross examination, the witness stated that the property was bushy and it did not have a morcellement permit and Accused no.1 accepted 2 deposits. The witness stated that he never saw the letter of intent (Document AC) during the enquiry. He stated that Accused no.1. cannot

be considered as a developer and received money from persons. He stated that Accused no.1 retained the services of an attorney to produce 2 receipts between him and witness no.7. He maintained that Accused no.1 did not have a development permit. In cross examination by Defence Counsel of Accused no.2, the witness stated that the land was undivided and there were 12 owners and he stated that there is a plan with the lots. He stated that he did not put the content of the letter (Document AD) to Accused no.2. It was put to Accused no.1 only. He stated that Accused no.1 was delegated by the other co-owners to make the application. He stated that he is not aware that the file was reconstituted in 2017. He stated that Accused no.1 was not issued with a Morcellement permit. He stated that some co-owners were abroad, some were untraceable and 1 or 2 their statements are in the police file. He confirmed that Document AK has been put to Accused no.1. Witness no.7 stated that 2 lots were being sold and he did not clarify the document from her. He did not record any statement from the land surveyor who did the subdivision project. He stated the land was still undivided. He stated that Accused no.2 drafted Document AM which is an agreement between witness no.7 and Accused no.1. He stated that Accused no.2 is in a better position to clarify about the plan of subdivision. He stated that he acted as per the reply of the Morcellement Board. He stated that Document AN also refers to an agreement between Accused no.1 and witness no.7 with the same conditions. He stated that he did not interprete the document where it is mentioned that if a condition that if the subdivision is not regularised, the agreement became void. Witness no.7, the declarant stated that she came to knowabout the sale of the land on L’Express newspaper and he contacted the person through mobile phone and it was in 2011. she positively identified Document AK which is dated the year 2010. the person showed her the land I.e. lots and she told him that she will buy it. Initially she selected one lot and subsequently she opted to buy the other lot as he told het the lots belonged to him. The person name was Wahed Ghanoo i.e Accused no.1. the price for the first lot was Rs 150 000. Accused no.1 did not give her any document but he gave her a paper which was like a site plan. Accusede no.1 told her that they will have to install electricity and water. She also wanted the second lot and she gave Accused no.1 Rs 100 000. she gave him Rs 250 000 in all and the sale price for the 2 lots were Rs 300 000. She gave Accused no.1 Rs 150 000 at Bahemia Building for her to take the paper. She gave a cheque on the name of Accused no.1. she was in company of her ex-husband, Accused no.1 and Accused no..2. it was Accused no.2 who made the documents and asked them to sign. She produce a copy of the cheque to court which was marked as Document AP. She stated that the name of the office was Me Joson and she assume he was the notary public. She identied Documemt AM as the document that Accused no.2 drafted and gave to her where her and Accused no.1 signed. She effected another payment of Rs 100000 together in company of her ex-husband, Accused no.1 and Accused no..2. the payment was effected by means of a cheque which she produced to Police. Accused no.2 told her that when the contract will be ready, it will be forwarded to her. She received the document for the payment of Rs 100000. She certified that it was Document AN that she received. She stated that it was Accused no.2 who drafted the documents. She waited for 2 months and she called Accused no.1 who told her the papers are not ready and he did not tell him the reasons. Accused no.1 was threatening her and

would not return her money. When she went to the Ministry of housing, she was informed that Accused no.1 did not apply for a morcellement and could not sell the land. She did not get the deed and she did not recover her Rs 250 000. In cross examination, witness no.7 stated that the land was bare land and bushy when she bought it. She stated that Accused no.1 was the owner. She was not aware of the rights Accused no.1 had on the land. It is only when she went to the Ministry that she came to know. It was in 2011 and they did not tell her how many owners were on the land. She was not aware if Accused no.1 gave a cheque of Rs 100 000 as she was not living here and she did not have a joint account with her husband. She stated that she did not ask Accused no.1 for the title deed as she did not know about it. She has not seen the title deed as at date. She did not know that the land formed part of a land to the extent of 1 arpent and that there were 13 owners. She was not aware that Accused no.1 had 1/13 th of the 1 arpent and that Accused bought another lot. She admitted that Accused no.1 was selling 2/13 of the 1 arpent and that she was buying the land. She stated that she read the agreement and she signed it and she was satisfied with the content. She did not recall of the area of land she was purchasing. She stated that Accused no.1 did not tell her that she is buying a subdivision. She stated that Accused no.1 told her that all the land belongs to him. She stated that Accused no.1 told her another thing and did not tell her for the difference of the sum, after 7 months to be paid after approval from competent authority and regularisation for the subdivision. She stated that she did not have money to initiate civil action. The witness stated that she assumed that the land belonged to Accused no.1. The defence did not adduce any evidence as it was entitled to. Conclusion The court have given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. Accused no.2 is being prosecuted for having on or about the 23 rd April 2020 at Port Louis wilfully and unlawfully draw up a document witnessing an agreement to sell land comprised in a morcellement without the developer having obtained a morcellement permit, to wit: he drew an agreement between the developer, Accused no.1 and witness no.7 for a sale of two portions of land situated at Nouvelle France.

Under section 8(2) of the Morcellement Act, it is stipulated that “(2) No person shall draw up any deed of sale or any document witnessing an agreement to sell land comprised in a morcellement unless the developer has obtained a morcellement permit.”

A perusal of Documents AM and AN (which are similar) shows that they are agreements to sell lot 6 and lot 7 of the undivided land situated at Nouvelle France where Accused no.1 was the owner of 2/13 th which he holds jointly with other co- owners to witness no.7. The 2 documents refer for the sale to be valid unless the subdivision of the land to the extent of 1 arpent get the authorisation of the relevant competent authorities and the land is divided of the land is made. Documents AM and

AN have been drafted by Accused no.2 and signed by Accused no.1 and witness no.7 in April 2010. Witness no.7 under oath stated that she signed the 2 documents after reading them. Therefore the court can infer that she was aware of the content of Document AM and AN. However, in court she stated under cross examination, she was not aware of same and that she did not intend a civil case as she did not have money. The court notes that she has been inconsistent on the issue of subdivision of the lots she was willing to purchase from Accused no.1 and that Accused no.1 was not the only owner. She was aware of the extent of the land she was buying from Accused no.1. She was aware also of the whole extent of the land from which lot no.6 and lot no.7 were from i.e. from the 1 arpent (see Document AA). she also did not mention where exactly lot no.6 and lot no.7 were situated exactly on the land extending 1 arpent. The more so, Documents AM and AN do not refer to a morcellement project but to a subdivision that has to get approval from competent authorities. The Prosecution did not adduce any evidence on the identities of the competent authorities mentioned in these two specific documents. No mention has been made in these 2 documents for the approval from the Morcellement Board of the Ministry of Housing and Land. The more so, no site plan or surveyor report specifying the exact location, width and length have been attached to the documents to know exactly where the lots in issue were as the court notes that as at to-date no subdivision has been made and Accused no.1 still hold undivided rights on the 1 arpent with other co-owners. Furthermore, it has not been established that Accused no.1 was a developer as per the Morcellement Act. Witness no.2 stated that the original file has been misplaced and the file has to be reconstituted. She also stated that there is no application in the reconstituted file. Moreover, the letter of intent for Morcellement permit made to Mala Bujare & others c/o Accused no.1 with the co-owners dated the 9 th November 2004 (see Document AC), according to witness no.2 has already lapsed as its validity is only for 12 months. In light of the foregoing, the court finds that there are doubts in the Prosecution’s case with respect to count 2 of the Information. Accused no.2 is given the benefit of the doubts This court finds that the Prosecution has not proved its case against Accused. Accused no.2 beyond reasonable doubts and count 2 of the Information is dismissed.

Yorgesh BHOOKHUN Magistrate, Intermediate Court (Criminal Division), This 29 th April 2026