{"id":1055754,"date":"2026-06-06T15:54:09","date_gmt":"2026-06-06T13:54:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/"},"modified":"2026-06-06T15:54:09","modified_gmt":"2026-06-06T13:54:09","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 – safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1<\/p>\n

safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)<\/p>\n

2020 INT 102<\/p>\n

Cause Number: 30\/18<\/p>\n

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of:<\/p>\n

Safety Construction Company Ltd PLAINTIFF V 1.The State of Mauritius 2. The National Development Unit DEFENDANTS<\/p>\n

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 :<\/p>\n

In view of the \u201cconnexite\u201d 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). \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

– 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.<\/p>\n

The submission of the Plaintiff: Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff cited several cases, namely: Jean Maureemootoo v Marco Sutterle & or 2012 SCJ 224, ABN \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

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 \u2018necessairement influer sur la solution de l\u2019autre\u2019 As such, the judgment before this court will not result in \u2018 une contrariete de decision\u2019. Analysis: 1. Connexite: A. The Law: Article 171 of Code de Procedure Civile stipulates that: \u201cS'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 form\u00e9 pr\u00e9c\u00e9demment, en un autre tribunal, une demande pour le m\u00eame objet, ou si la contestation est connexe \u00e0 une cause d\u00e9ja pendante en un autre tribunal, le renvoi pourra \u00eatre demande\u00e9 et ordonn\u00e9\u201d.<\/p>\n

– Distinction between litispendance and connexit\u00e9 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 connexit\u00e9 are distinguishable in that \u2013 \u201c\u2026 Il y a litispendance, en effet, lorsque deux juridictions \u00e9galement comp\u00e9tentes sont saisies d\u2019un litige identique, ce qui suppose un litige ayant le m\u00eame objet, fond\u00e9 sur la m\u00eame cause et opposant les m\u00eames parties \u2026 . La connexit\u00e9, au contraire, suppose que des demandes soient form\u00e9es dans des affaires diff\u00e9rentes; la diff\u00e9rence peut tenir aux parties \u2026, \u00e0 l\u2019objet ou au fondement des demandes\u201d \u2013 Dalloz (supra), Note 3. Connexit\u00e9 is defined as \u201cle lien \u00e9troit entre deux demandes non identiques mais telles qu\u2019il est de bonne justice de les instruire et juger en m\u00eame temps<\/p>\n

afin d\u2019\u00e9viter des solutions qui pourraient \u00eatre inconciliables\u201d – Dalloz, R\u00e9pertoire de Proc\u00e9dure Civile, Tome II, Note 1 Vo Connexit\u00e9.\u201d The court went on to say that the question that needs to be asked is that: \u201c\u2026 les instances pr\u00e9sentent entre elles une corr\u00e9lation telle que la solution de l\u2019une doive n\u00e9cessairement influer sur la solution de l\u2019autre, de telle sorte que si elles \u00e9taient jug\u00e9es s\u00e9par\u00e9ment, il risquerait d\u2019en r\u00e9sulter une contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 de d\u00e9cisions. \u2026\u201d \u2013 Dalloz supra, Note 2.\u201d The court made mention that to determine \u201cles caract\u00e8res et \u00e9l\u00e9ments de \u201cconnexit\u00e9\u201d, one should ask whether there are \u201c\u2026 deux affaires distinctes et qui, sans \u00eatre n\u00e9cessairement li\u00e9es entre les m\u00eame parties, pr\u00e9sentent de tels rapports entre elles que, si les tribunaux rendaient deux jugements en sens contraire, il n\u2019y aurait pas sans doute opposition de chose jug\u00e9e, mais il serait difficile ou peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame impossible de faire ex\u00e9cuter les deux sentences\u201d \u2013 Note 154 – Dalloz Codes Annot\u00e9s, Nouveau Code de Proc\u00e9dure Civile C. PR. CIV – Art. 171 1er Part, Liv II – Des tribunaux inf\u00e9rieurs. (a) The Issue of connexit\u00e9 \u2013 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: \u201cConnexit\u00e9 itself is defined as follows: \u201cLa connexit\u00e9 (du latin connexus, de connectere qui signifie \u201clier ensemble\u201d est le \u00ab lien \u00e9troit entre deux demandes non identiques mais telles qu\u2019il est de bonne justice de les instruire et juger en m\u00eame temps afin d\u2019\u00e9viter des solutions qui pourraient \u00eatre inconciliables.\u00bb \u2013 Encyclop\u00e9die Dalloz Proc\u00e9dure Civile Connexit\u00e9 (Recueil Vo Exceptions de proc\u00e9dure). Another definition from Dalloz Codes Annot\u00e9s, Nouveau Code de Proc\u00e9dure Civile C.PR. CIV \u2013 Art. 171 1er Part, Liv II \u2013 Des tribunaux inf\u00e9rieurs is given at Note 154: (the underlining is mine). \u00ab L\u2019exception de connexit\u00e9 suppose, \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de la litispendance, deux affaires distinctes et qui, sans \u00eatre n\u00e9cessairement li\u00e9es entre les m\u00eame parties, pr\u00e9sentent<\/p>\n

de tels rapports entre elles que, si les tribunaux rendaient deux jugements en sens contraire, il n\u2019y aurait pas sans doute opposition de chose jug\u00e9e, mais il serait difficile ou peut-\u00eatre m\u00eame impossible de faire ex\u00e9cuter les deux sentences.\u00bb Further Note 161 from Dalloz Codes Annot\u00e9s Nouveau Code de Procedure Civile states as follows: \u00abTandis que la litispendance suppose deux instances pour une seule et m\u00eame contestation, il suffit, pour qu\u2019il y ait lieu au renvoi pour connexit\u00e9, que les deux instances, bien que relatives \u00e0 un objet diff\u00e9rent, aient entre elles une corr\u00e9lation telle que la solution de l\u2019une doive n\u00e9cessairement influer sur la solution de l\u2019autre.\u00bb (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: \u201cIt is not a prerequisite of the principle of connexit\u00e9 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 connexit\u00e9 \u201cpostule que les affaires litigieuses soient distinctes – non pas identiques car il y aurait alors mati\u00e8re \u00e0 litispendance \u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026…\u00bb Note 40 – Enclycopedie Dalloz Supra.<\/p>\n

(b) Secondly, the outcome of one case will have an impact on the outcome of the other case. at page 5 of Lesage (supra) \u2013 this was said: \u201cAs such I find that \u201cles deux instances, bien que relatives \u00e0 un objet diff\u00e9rent, ont entre elles une corr\u00e9lation telle que la solution de l\u2019une doive n\u00e9cessairement influer sur la solution de l\u2019autre\u00bb<\/p>\n

(c ) Thirdly, is there possibility of \u201ccontrari\u00e9t\u00e9 des jugements\u201d? As per the case of Maureemootoo (supra) it is said that : \u201cNor can it be said in the present circumstances that there is a risk of \u201ccontrari\u00e9t\u00e9 de<\/p>\n

d\u00e9cisions\u201d 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 \u201cinconciliables\u201d and both judgments can be executed without any difficulty\u201d. 2. Applying the law to the facts of the present matter. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present matter \u2013 the court has to highlight the fact that as per the present proecipe at paragraph 6 it is mentioned that \u201cPlaintiff avers that following a tender exercise \u2026and 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 \u201cconstruction and upgrading of roads and associated works for the year 2015- 2017 ( the contract)\u201d 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 \u2013 constituency no 14 works order NDU\/ 2016\/246, and 2. Resurfacing of Saturn lane at Morc Dookhun, Beau Songes \u2013 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 \u2013 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)<\/p>\n

( 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\u2026 (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 \u2013 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 \u2013 as per paragraph 9 of the said plaint. In the matter at hand at paragraph 13 of the Proecipe, Only \u201cdeductions\u201d 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<\/p>\n

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 \u201ccorrelation\u201d telle que la solution de l\u2019une doive n\u00e9cessairement influer sur la solution de l\u2019autre.\u00bb. Given \u201cle lien \u00e9troit entre deux demandes non identiques\u201d it will be \u201c de bonne justice de les instruire et juger en m\u00eame temps afin d\u2019\u00e9viter des solutions qui pourraient \u00eatre inconciliables\u2019\u2019. 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.<\/p>\n

Delivered by: HH. Mrs K. Sockalingum \u2013 Juwaheer, Acting Magistrate Intermediate Court Delivered On: 29.06.20<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a> · PDF officiel<\/a><\/p>\n

Supreme Court of Mauritius – public domain<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[121800],"kji_year":[41198],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[7644,15092,15757,18604,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-1055754","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mrs-k-sockalingum-juwaheer-acting-magistrate-intermediate-court","kji_year-41198","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-company","kji_keyword-construction","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-safety","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 - safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 - safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 - safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-06T13:54:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 – safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 - safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 - safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)","og_description":"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...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 - safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-06-06T13:54:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-29-juin-2020-2020-int-102-safety-construction-company-limited-v-state-autosaved\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/criminal-law-attorneys-in-paris-counsel-and-strategic-defense\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 29 juin 2020, 2020 INT 102 – safety construction company limited v state (Autosaved)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Logo-Kohen-1000.webp","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/1055754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1055754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=1055754"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=1055754"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=1055754"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=1055754"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=1055754"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=1055754"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=1055754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}