Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 janvier 2020, 2020 PL1 6 – Dinagold Ltd & Anor v. Swan General Ltd & Anor

Dinagold Ltd & Anor v. Swan General Ltd & Anor

2020 PL1 6

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PORT LOUIS (Div I) Cause Number: – 95/19 In the matter of: – 1. Dinagold Ltd 2. Mauritius Eagle Insurance Company Limited Plaintiffs v. 1. Swan General Ltd 2. Tony Atnas Defendants RULING

This is a claim for damages arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on or about 02 July 2006. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants were represented by counsel.

The defendants have raised a plea in limine litis which reads as follows: – Ex facie the Praecipe, the Plaintiffs’ action is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Arbitration Committee (MVIAC). As such the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case.

Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that ex-facie the pleadings, there is no averment that either a state vehicle was involved, that there was injury, that there is damage to property, that the driver was under the influence of alcohol so that none of the exceptions to the

MVIAC apply. Further, she submitted that ex facie the pleadings only two vehicles were involved. This, despite the averment at paragraph 5 of the plea which in her submission only mentions the presence of a third vehicle but that the said third vehicle was not implicated in the accident because the defendants aver that the accident occurred through the exclusive faute of the driver of the plaintiff and there was no third party procedure, so that, it remains that only two vehicles were involved in the accident.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that inasmuch as the defendants themselves have mentioned the presence of a third vehicle in their plea and without going into the details of whether there was any damage caused to the third vehicle at this stage, this case involves three vehicles and this precludes the jurisdiction of the MVIAC.

I have considered the submissions of both learned counsels.

Section 68 A of the Road Traffic Act reads as follows: – “Notwithstanding any other enactment or anything to the contrary in an insurance contract, sections 68B to 68J shall apply to every road traffic accident between 2 motor vehicles which does not involve – (a) Bodily injury to persons travelling in the motor vehicles; (b) Injury or other prejudice to any other person; (c) Damage to other structure or property; (d) A motor vehicle which does not have a valid insurance vignette; (e) A motor vehicle being driven by a person not holding a valid driving licence; (f) A motor vehicle being driven by a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs; (g) A State owned vehicle “ (emphasis added)

Although, the defendants have mentioned the presence of a third vehicle in paragraph 5 of its plea, it is clear from both the amended praecipe and the plea, that neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have averred that the third vehicle was involved in the accident, that is, that there

was an accident between three vehicles. I am therefore satisfied ex facie the pleadings that there was an accident between two motor vehicles only.

Inasmuch as it is not disputed that none of the exceptions provided for under section 68 A (a) to (g) apply in the present case, I find that this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the present matter and uphold the plea in limine litis. I therefore set aside the plaint against both defendants. With Costs.

S Chui [Ruling delivered by S Chui (Mrs) Senior District Magistrate] [Ruling delivered on 29 th January 2020]