Supreme Court of Mauritius, 9 avril 2026, 2026 INT 91 – MANIKUM V LE DEFI PLUS LTEE

MANIKUM V LE DEFI PLUS LTEE

2026 INT 91

CN 550/22

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (CIVIL DIVISION)

In the matter of:-

Kristopher Brian Manikum Plaintiff V

1. Le Defi Plus Ltee 2. Mr Ehshan Kodarbux Defendants

RULING

Plaintiff avers in his second amended proecipe that on the 8 th December 2019, the employees/agents/preposes of defendant no.1 have published on the online newspaper ‘Defimedia Info’ (and same was shared on Facebook through the official Facebook page of ‘Defimedia Info’, an article illustrating as its front cover a coloured photo of the plaintiff with the headline “Il exhibe son sexe devant une jeune vendeuse: il est epingle grace aux images CCTV dans le magasin”. The said article was also published in the weekly l’Hebdo. The plaintiff further avers that the said

article contains highly defamatory statements, false and misleading information against him and is therefore praying from this Court for a judgment condemning and ordering both defendants to pay him the sum of Rs 2 million as damages and to publish formal excuses in the front page of all their newspapers in 5 consecutive editions.

In their Plea, the defendants have raised a plea in limine litis which reads as follows:

“The plaintiff has failed to aver exactly which parts of the article referred to were allegedly defamatory to the plaintiff, and to reproduce these parts verbatim in the Second Amended Proecipe. In addition, the plaintiff has failed to aver what meaning or meanings the plaintiff has ascribed to precise words used in the article. For these reasons, the defendants pray that the plaintiff’s plaint be set aside. With costs’’.

Mr S Sawmynaden, counsel for the defendants, after referring to a number of authorities, submitted that the plaintiff has a duty to clearly identify and specify the particular passages or articles of the impugned publication which was alleged to be defamatory, as it is insufficient to merely reproduce or refer to the entire article. By merely referring to the title and to the full article, without identifying the allegedly defamatory statements or ascribing to any specific extract of the article an actionable defamatory meaning, this is a fatal defect. Mr Sawmynaden further submitted that by refusing to provide particulars of the parts of the article which are defamatory, false or misleading, the defendants have been deprived of the opportunity to put up an active defence.

Mr Teeluckdharry, for the plaintiff, on the other hand has submitted that the second amended proecipe contains all the necessary averments required for a case of defamation.

I have considered the submissions of both counsels and I find it appropriate at this stage to set out some our case laws on defamation.

In the case of Boodhoo v Walter (1979) MR 201, it was held that “There are a number of decided cases in England concerning whether a plaintiff can, in relation to an article which is alleged to be libellous, rely on the article as a whole or be compelled to specify the passages which constitute the libel. The basic principle is that a party is entitled to so many particulars of his opponent's pleadings as will enable him to reply thereto without being embarrassed. But much will depend on the facts and pleadings in each case: if one looks at the decisions in England concerning requests for particulars relating to an allegedly libellous or slanderous article or speech, one is confirmed in this view. If a party avers that a long and rambling article is defamatory of him, and it appears for example that parts of the article are not libellous at all, while others are libellous of unnamed persons or of persons other than the plaintiff, then it will be held that it is embarrassing to “throw an article of that kind at the defendants and indeed at the Court” (per Lord Denning MR in D.D.S.A. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Times Newspaper Ltd. (1973) Q.B. 21)”.

The court in Boodhoo went on to hold that “……the pleading is defective because it throws -and I use that word deliberately -on to the defendants a long article without picking out the parts said to be defamatory. Some of the article is not defamatory of anyone at all. It describes only the method of importing drugs. Other parts of the article are defamatory of some unnamed chemists, but not of the plaintiffs at all. Yet other parts may be defamatory of the plaintiffs. To throw an article of that kind at the defendants and indeed at the court, without picking out the particular passages, is highly embarrassing”.

In the case of Constantin v Jhuboo (2014) SCJ 221, it was held that “…in an action for libel or slander the precise words complained of are material, and they must be set out verbatim in the statement of claim. If the words taken by themselves are not clearly actionable, the plaintiff must also insert in his statement of claim an averment (with particulars in support) of an actionable meaning which he will contend the words conveyed to those to who they were published. Such an averment is called an innuendo. Harris v Warre [1879]4 C.P.D. 125;48 L.J.C.P 310;Collins v Jones [1955] 1 Q.B. 564; Rubber Improvement Ltd. v Daily Telegraph Ltd. [1963] 2 W.L.R. 1063.”

In Gatley on Libel and Slander, 9th edition, (cited in Constantin supra), at page 652, we read: "In a libel claim, the words used are material facts and they must be set out verbatim in the particulars of claim, preferably in the form of quotation; it is not enough to describe their substance, purport or effect."

In the case of DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V Times Newspaper and another [1972] 3 All ER 417 (cited in Constantin, supra) it was held that –“The statement of claim should be struck out as embarrassing and defective for the following reasons: Even though the plaintiffs relied on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used, it was necessary for their conduct of the trial and to enable the defendant to plead that the plaintiff should set out the meaning or meanings which the words bore since the article was capable of many different meanings. The pleading threw on the defendant a long article, some of which was not defamatory …………… but failed to specify those passages alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiffs.”

In Pydannah v Prayag (2023) SCJ 51, it was held that in “a claim for defamation, the actual words complained of, and not merely their substance, must be set out verbatim in the particulars of the claim – vide Halsbury’s Laws of England. Fifth Edition, Vol. 32, para 679”.

It follows from the above authorities that in matters of libel and slander, the plaintiff must set out the following in his statement of claim:

(i) the part or parts of the article which are defamatory to him

(ii) a verbatim reproduction of the defamatory words, and

(iii) the meaning or meanings which the defamatory words carry.

In the present matter, I firstly note that it has been averred at paragraph 3 of the second amended proecipe: “Il exhibe son sexe devant une jeune vendeuse: il est epingle grace aux images CCTV dans le magasin” which is a verbatim reproduction of the title of the newspaper article. Again at paragraph 5 of the second amened proecipe, the plaintiff has set out verbatim the introductory part of the article which reads as follows: “Un habitant de la capitale, age de 31 ans, a ete coffre pour avoir exhibe ses

parties intimes devant une jeune vendeuse dans la capitale. Le suspect a ete epinle grace aux images des cameras CCTV installees dans le magasin”. As rightly submitted by Mr Teeluckdharry, at paragraphs 7(a)- (e), the plaintiff has given particulars of the meanings which those words are trying to convey (namely that the plaintiff is a person of a perverse nature who has stalked and masturbated himself without inhibition in front of a 19 years old girl).

In light of the above, I am of the view that the plaintiff has not only identified the parts of the article which are defamatory to him, but he has also given sufficient details of the defamatory meanings of those parts.

In the circumstances, it would be wrong to say that the plaintiff has thrown a long article on the defendants without specifying all the essential averments necessary for a case of this nature.

I therefore set aside the plea in limine litis.

B.Sawock (Ms) Magistrate, Intermediate Court. 09.04.26