Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 – safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)

1

safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)

2020 INT 102

Cause Number: 30/18

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of:

Safety Construction Company Ltd PLAINTIFF V 1.The State of Mauritius 2. The National Development Unit DEFENDANTS

Ruling: In the Proecipe dated 12.01.2018 the Plaintiff is praying for : (a) a Judgment ordering and condemning the Defendants jointly and in solido to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of Rs 384,633.66/-. representing the amount unlawfully, without title or capacity, deducted/ retained by the defendants from the payment certificates certified for payment, together with interest on the said sum to be reckoned at the legal rate from the time of service of the notice of mise of demeure until the date of payment AND (b) to make such other order(s) as the court may deem fit and necessary in the present circumstances. Thereafter a Plea in Limine Litis was raised by the Defendants to the effect that :

In view of the “connexite” and in the interest of the good administration of justice, Defendants move that the present matter be stayed pending the determination of the case bearing Cause Number 369/2019 lodged by the Plaintiff against the Defendants before the District Court of Port Louis ( 1 st Division) which involves an adjudication of the same issue as in the present matter ( that is whether the Defendants were right in Applying the base price of Rs 30,000 per ton (excl of VAT) as opposed to Rs 17, 962.24 per ton (excl of VAT)]. The submission of the Defendants: Learned Counsel for the Defendants started off by producing a copy of the proecipe as well as the plea before the District Court of Port Louis. The case of Robert Lesage v The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd 2008 SCJ 252 (page 3 and 5 ) and Jean Maureemootoo v Marco Sutterle & or 2012 SCJ 224 were cited whereby it is not necessary for the cause of action pending before the 2 separate jurisdictions to be the same. Secondly that the outcome in one case will necessarily impact on the outcome of the other case and thirdly, whether the possibility of conflicting judgment exists as per page 11 of the case of Maureemootoo (supra). Learned state Counsel for the defendants mentioned that applying the principles set out in the above mentioned cases- it can be said that the parties are the same and that the issues are the same. (although this is not a requirement). – Initially there was a contract between plaintiff and defendant no 2 for a number of construction works ( parag 6 of proecipe). – payment certificates were issued for plaintiff to be paid for 2 projects. (parag 12) – however plaintiff was not paid in full and deductions were made therein in the sum of Rs 329,908.86 – learned counsel for the state went on to explain that the reason why the deductions were made were because defendant inadvertently referred to the wrong base price of Rs 30,0000 per ton instead of Rs 17,962.24 thereby leading to an overpayment of Rs 54,724.80 and Rs 329,000.

– the Defendant thereafter as per the meaning of article 1289- 1299 of the Code Civil sought to recover the over payments by way of a set off against any payment due on the work orders on another contract. – ie the said deductions were based on the wrongly quoted price per ton for the price of bitumen. The same issue has to be taken into account before this court to determine whether the deductions made were correct ie whether the sum of Rs 30,000 were correct or whether the sum of Rs 17,9962.24 was the correct one before deciding whether the set off is in order. As such, the issues, as per the principle of connexite ie the issues are the same. The outcome in the District court case will necessarily affect the outcome in the present matter. Thirdly, if 2 magistrates are seized on this same issue, the possibility of conflicting judgments exists. The defendant is not asking for any transfer but only asking that this issue of fact be determined first, by the other court . Thereafter, this court can determine the correctness of the applicability of article 1291 of the Code Civil and the right to set off can be determined.

The submission of the Plaintiff: Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff cited several cases, namely: Jean Maureemootoo v Marco Sutterle & or 2012 SCJ 224, ABN – Amro Bank v Apparel exports limited & 4 ors 2001 SCJ 204, Fanny & ors v Mauritius co operative savings and credit league 2015 SCJ 331, on the principles of connexite. Counsel also mentioned that this court is not bound by the decision of a lower court and cited the case of Naiken v The Country Planning Board & ors 2009 SCJ 309. That the present matter was lodged prior to the district court case. Article 171 of the Code of Civil Procedure Act was cited. The present case was lodged in January 2018 whereas the District Court case was lodged in February 2019. The present matter and the one in the district court concern 2 different contracts.

It was also stated that the objet and the cause are separate and distinct. The present matter concerns the validity of a deduction made after a payment has been certified. The plaint does not mention the rate of bitumen used. It is submitted that there is no lien de connexite between the two cases in as much as the decision to be reached before the District Court Will not ‘necessairement influer sur la solution de l’autre’ As such, the judgment before this court will not result in ‘ une contrariete de decision’. Analysis: 1. Connexite: A. The Law: Article 171 of Code de Procedure Civile stipulates that: “S'il a été formé précédemment, en un autre tribunal, une demande pour le même objet, ou si la contestation est connexe à une cause déja pendante en un autre tribunal, le renvoi pourra être demandeé et ordonné”.

– Distinction between litispendance and connexité As per Jean Maureemootoo v Marco Sutterle & or 2012 SCJ 224 whereby at page 10, a distinction is made between Litispendance and connexite as follows: Litispendance and connexité are distinguishable in that – “… Il y a litispendance, en effet, lorsque deux juridictions également compétentes sont saisies d’un litige identique, ce qui suppose un litige ayant le même objet, fondé sur la même cause et opposant les mêmes parties … . La connexité, au contraire, suppose que des demandes soient formées dans des affaires différentes; la différence peut tenir aux parties …, à l’objet ou au fondement des demandes” – Dalloz (supra), Note 3. Connexité is defined as “le lien étroit entre deux demandes non identiques mais telles qu’il est de bonne justice de les instruire et juger en même temps

afin d’éviter des solutions qui pourraient être inconciliables” – Dalloz, Répertoire de Procédure Civile, Tome II, Note 1 Vo Connexité.” The court went on to say that the question that needs to be asked is that: “… les instances présentent entre elles une corrélation telle que la solution de l’une doive nécessairement influer sur la solution de l’autre, de telle sorte que si elles étaient jugées séparément, il risquerait d’en résulter une contrariété de décisions. …” – Dalloz supra, Note 2.” The court made mention that to determine “les caractères et éléments de “connexité”, one should ask whether there are “… deux affaires distinctes et qui, sans être nécessairement liées entre les même parties, présentent de tels rapports entre elles que, si les tribunaux rendaient deux jugements en sens contraire, il n’y aurait pas sans doute opposition de chose jugée, mais il serait difficile ou peut-être même impossible de faire exécuter les deux sentences” – Note 154 – Dalloz Codes Annotés, Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile C. PR. CIV – Art. 171 1er Part, Liv II – Des tribunaux inférieurs. (a) The Issue of connexité – firstly, not a prerequisite that the cause of action be of the same nature in both cases. The case of Robert Lesage v The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd 2008 SCJ 252 the Honourable Judge cited the following on the issue of connexite: “Connexité itself is defined as follows: “La connexité (du latin connexus, de connectere qui signifie “lier ensemble” est le « lien étroit entre deux demandes non identiques mais telles qu’il est de bonne justice de les instruire et juger en même temps afin d’éviter des solutions qui pourraient être inconciliables.» – Encyclopédie Dalloz Procédure Civile Connexité (Recueil Vo Exceptions de procédure). Another definition from Dalloz Codes Annotés, Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile C.PR. CIV – Art. 171 1er Part, Liv II – Des tribunaux inférieurs is given at Note 154: (the underlining is mine). « L’exception de connexité suppose, à la différence de la litispendance, deux affaires distinctes et qui, sans être nécessairement liées entre les même parties, présentent

de tels rapports entre elles que, si les tribunaux rendaient deux jugements en sens contraire, il n’y aurait pas sans doute opposition de chose jugée, mais il serait difficile ou peut-être même impossible de faire exécuter les deux sentences.» Further Note 161 from Dalloz Codes Annotés Nouveau Code de Procedure Civile states as follows: «Tandis que la litispendance suppose deux instances pour une seule et même contestation, il suffit, pour qu’il y ait lieu au renvoi pour connexité, que les deux instances, bien que relatives à un objet différent, aient entre elles une corrélation telle que la solution de l’une doive nécessairement influer sur la solution de l’autre.» (the underlining is mine). It is to be highlighted that it is not necessary for the cause of action pending before the two separate jurisdictions to be the same. This is set out as per the case of Lesage (supra) as follows: “It is not a prerequisite of the principle of connexité that the cause of action should be of the same nature in the two cases. Indeed it is to be noted that la condition de connexité “postule que les affaires litigieuses soient distinctes – non pas identiques car il y aurait alors matière à litispendance ……………» Note 40 – Enclycopedie Dalloz Supra.

(b) Secondly, the outcome of one case will have an impact on the outcome of the other case. at page 5 of Lesage (supra) – this was said: “As such I find that “les deux instances, bien que relatives à un objet différent, ont entre elles une corrélation telle que la solution de l’une doive nécessairement influer sur la solution de l’autre»

(c ) Thirdly, is there possibility of “contrariété des jugements”? As per the case of Maureemootoo (supra) it is said that : “Nor can it be said in the present circumstances that there is a risk of “contrariété de

décisions” between the Industrial Court and the Supreme Court inasmuch as even if the plaintiff were to lose before the Industrial Court and win before this court or vice versa, the decisions in the two cases cannot be said to be “inconciliables” and both judgments can be executed without any difficulty”. 2. Applying the law to the facts of the present matter. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present matter – the court has to highlight the fact that as per the present proecipe at paragraph 6 it is mentioned that “Plaintiff avers that following a tender exercise …and by virtue of a written contract agreement dated 15 th June 2016 Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant no 2 for a number of construction works to be carried out known as the “construction and upgrading of roads and associated works for the year 2015- 2017 ( the contract)” This proecipe (at paragraph 8) mentioned that Plaintiff had to carry out 2 pieces of work namely: 1. Construction of Appavu lane, orc Appavu, Beau Bassin – constituency no 14 works order NDU/ 2016/246, and 2. Resurfacing of Saturn lane at Morc Dookhun, Beau Songes – Constituency no 14 works order NDU/2016/342 for the above mentioned works, the payment which were to be effected (as per paragraph 12) should have been as follows: NDU/ 2016/246 – Rs 761,705.95 NDU/2016/342- Rs 1,214,016.83 However, deductions were made by Defendant no 2 for the sums of Rs 329,908.86 and Rs54,724.80 respectively from the above amount. Such deductions are claimed to be non contractual, made arbitrarily, unwarrantedly, unilaterally and without justification as per the plaintiff. ( As per paragraph 13- 15). Given the above, Defendant no 2 has committed a faute contractuelle (paragraph 17) and therefore Plaintiff is praying for: (for ease of reference same is reproduced anew)

( A) a judgment ordering and condemning the Defendants Jointly and in solido to pay the Plaintiff the sum of Rs 384,633.66/- representing the amount unlawfully, without any title or capacity, deducted/ retained by the Defendants from the payment certificates certified for payment, together with interests on the said sum… (B ) to make such orders as the court may deem fit and necessary in the present circumstances. Now having a look at the proecipe before the District court of Port Louis, it can be said that the parties are the same ie Safety Construction Company Limited vs The State of Mauritius. The slight difference with the present matter is that NDU is referred as Defendant no 1. However NDU forms part of the State of Mauritius. Secondly, the crux of the matter was that Plaintiff effected work order NDU/ARDR 11-12/ 2014/4/AM/2 as per paragraph 4 of the plaint and claimed Rs208,253.18 but was short paid by Rs 172, 879.50 – as per paragraph 11 of the plaint. (Before the District Court). That short payment was due to an issue on the calculation on the rate per ton for the price of bitumen in that matter – as per paragraph 9 of the said plaint. In the matter at hand at paragraph 13 of the Proecipe, Only “deductions” were referred by the Plaintiff and there was no mention as to whether same was because of the issue on the rate per ton for the price of bitumen. However, as per the plea filed by the defendants, the latter explained why deductions were made and they explained that same is based on an issue with the price of the Bitumen. Reference is made to paragraph 9.2- 9.7, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12 of the present plea. Conclusion: In short, the issue that needs to be determined by this court is : – whether payment to the plaintiff shall be effected in totality or not. (whether the deductions were rightfully made or not). To determine this, court has to consider which is the right quote for the bitumen. In short, the defence as raised in the plea is mostly based on the correct price for the bitumen ( as mentioned above). Which is the very same issue before the District Court of Port Louis. As such, once the correct figure is determined by the District

court, same will help this court on the basis of the proper calculation. In fact, it might even help the parties to come to an agreement in the present matter. Hence, as per the plea of the defendants, it can be said that the issues raised in both cases, have a “correlation” telle que la solution de l’une doive nécessairement influer sur la solution de l’autre.». Given “le lien étroit entre deux demandes non identiques” it will be “ de bonne justice de les instruire et juger en même temps afin d’éviter des solutions qui pourraient être inconciliables’’. In the matter at hand, the best avenue would be to wait for the decision of the District Court before moving forward with the present matter. Hence the present matter is stayed pending the determination of the District court.

Delivered by: HH. Mrs K. Sockalingum – Juwaheer, Acting Magistrate Intermediate Court Delivered On: 29.06.20