{"id":919435,"date":"2026-05-18T12:48:45","date_gmt":"2026-05-18T10:48:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/"},"modified":"2026-05-18T12:48:45","modified_gmt":"2026-05-18T10:48:45","slug":"supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 – Alighan v Karia"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1<\/p>\n

Alighan v Karia<\/p>\n

2026 INT 85<\/p>\n

THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of: CN 433\/2021 Asraf ALIGHAN PLAINTIFF v.<\/p>\n

Souriesing KARIA DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for damages on the ground of \u201cfaute\u201d. At the material time, Plaintiff was working as Fisheries Protection Officer (FPO) at Grand Gaube Fisheries Post and the Defendant was also working thereat, as a Senior Fisheries Protection Officer (SFPO). In his proecipe, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendant made several complaints against the Plaintiff during the months of December 2020 and January 2021, to the effect that the Plaintiff committed forgery by making false entries in the Diary Book of the Fisheries Post. Plaintiff further avers that he felt depressed by the allegations of the Defendant which were made with the calculated intention to undermine his professional integrity. Plaintiff is hence praying for a judgment condemning and ordering the Defendant to pay to him damages in the sum of Rs 2 million for the prejudice suffered. With interest and costs.<\/p>\n

2. In his plea, the Defendant denies having made any false and malicious allegations against the Plaintiff. He avers that he has only reported the facts that has come to his knowledge and which he deemed to be against the Standing Instructions of the Fisheries Protection Service. He also avers that the Plaintiff never denied having made false entries in the Diary Book. According to the Defendant, he acted within the purview of his duties and reported a wrongful practice of the Plaintiff. If he had ignored such practice, he would have gone against the proper discharge of his duties. Defendant further avers that, as an SFPO, he is in charge of the whole team when he is at work and any breach of the Standing Instructions of the Fisheries Protection Service, whilst he is on duty, falls within his responsibility. Defendant hence denies the claim and avers that it was Plaintiff\u2019s own acts and doings which undermined his professional integrity.<\/p>\n

3. The Defendant also raised several pleas in limine on the ground of which the proecipe ought to be set aside. They are summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n

(i) The Plaintiff failed to put all the interested parties into cause, more particularly, the Ministry of Blue Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping, under which both parties were employed at all material times; (ii) The proecipe does not disclose a cause of action since Plaintiff failed to aver any bad faith on the part of the Defendant; (iii) The Plaintiff is making an abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as, based on the facts relied upon by the Plaintiff himself in his proecipe, he actually went against the proper discharge of his duties and committed fraud.<\/p>\n

4. The above points were, however, not argued in limine litis but were instead canvassed on the merits. During the trial, evidence was adduced by both parties. Witnesses were called to depone on behalf of each side and several documents were produced in support of their respective cases (Documents A to N).<\/p>\n

5. I have duly considered all the evidence placed before me, as well as the written and oral submissions of both counsel and the authorities relied upon by them.<\/p>\n

6. It is the Plaintiff\u2019s case that the Defendant had put entries in the Diary Book on the 27 th of December 2020, 5 th of January 2021 and 8 th of January 2021 (Documents A, A1 and A2), and had reported a case of forgery against him to the Ministry (Document N) with a view to tarnish his professional reputation. In the above DB entries, Defendant drew the attention of Mr Cunnee, the Inspector in charge of Grand Gaube Fisheries Post, to the allegedly forged entries made by Plaintiff as regards the time of departure for FPOs Rampersad and Lallmamode. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not observe the proper channel in reporting a case against him, the more so that Defendant did not work in the same shift as him. It was Mr Cunnee, and not for the Defendant, who should have reported him. Plaintiff further stated that, if it was Mr Cunnee who brought a complaint of forgery against him, he would have had no issue 1 .<\/p>\n

7. While the Plaintiff agreed that the Standing Instructions require officers to record their arrival and departure in their own handwriting (Document C), he explained that, as the officer in charge of his shift, he inserted the entries on behalf of the other officers as a health and safety measure with a view to minimise the risk of transmission of the Covid-19 disease. Plaintiff also conceded that the confinement period was over in the months of December 2020 and January 2021 but he maintained that, since people were still getting sick, the necessity for precautions was still felt 2 . Plaintiff added that Mr Cunnee, the Inspector in charge, never reproached him for adopting this practice and nor was any communiqu\u00e9 issued by the Ministry requesting that this arrangement be discontinued.<\/p>\n

8. The Defendant\u2019s case, on the other hand, is that he had the right to put those entries in the Diary Book (Documents A, A1 and A2) since it was the only way for Mr Cunnee to take cognizance of what was happening in his absence. Moreover, Defendant maintained that FPOs Rampersad and Lallmamode were<\/p>\n

1 Pages 32-33 of the transcript for the sitting of the 17 th of December 2024. 2 Page 6 of the transcript for the sitting of the 17 th of December 2024.<\/p>\n

not physically present when their departure was being inserted by the Plaintiff, which amounted to a forgery and a clear breach of the Standing Instructions (Document C). The Defendant also explained that work was back to normal in the months of December 2020 and January 2021 and there was no reason to continue with the practice adopted during the lockdown period.<\/p>\n

9. In addition, the Defendant maintained that he adopted the right reporting procedure. The Defendant stated that he spoke to Mr Cunnee and the latter told him to report the Plaintiff to the Ministry, which he did. He sent a letter of complaint to the Senior Chief Executive of the Ministry (Document N) and same was copied to the Acting Controller and the Human Resource Manager of the Fisheries Protection Service. Following Defendant\u2019s complaint, an investigation was carried out by the Internal Control Unit of the Ministry (Document D) whereby several shortcomings were observed and recommendations were made to better monitor attendance of officers. Furthermore, it is the Defendant\u2019s case that the Standing Instructions of 2008 have never been amended and are therefore to be strictly adhered to by all officers.<\/p>\n

10. Both Counsel were invited by the court to further submit on whether, in the light of the evidence on record, there was a \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d or a \u201cfaute de service\u201d on the part of the Defendant. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Defendant committed a \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d, in that he went over and above his duties when he inserted those allegations against the Plaintiff in the Diary Book and wrote to the Ministry directly, hence bypassing his chain of command. He referred the court to the case of Samrandine & Anor v The State of Mauritius [2024 SCJ 304]. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Defendant argued that there was no fault committed at all by the Defendant, be it \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d or \u201cfaute de service\u201d, but if a \u201cfaute\u201d is to be considered, then it should have been a \u201cfaute de service\u201d since they were both on duty at the time. He relied on the cases of Neewoor v Burrenchobay [2017 SCJ 22] and Jaggaseeah v Aubeeluck [1982 MR 28].<\/p>\n

11. In the present matter, it is not disputed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were employees of the Ministry of Blue Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping at the material time and that both were on duty when the acts complained of by the Plaintiff, were allegedly committed by the Defendant. They were both, therefore, public officers acting in the course of their employment. The issue which the court has to determine, here, is whether by reporting the conduct of the Plaintiff, which he considered reprehensible, in the Diary Book of the Fisheries Post as well as in a letter addressed to the Senior Chief Executive of the Ministry, the Defendant has acted beyond the scope of his powers and duties.<\/p>\n

12. By virtue of S.2 of the State Proceedings Act, the State assumes vicarious liability for the torts committed by its employees or agents. Thus, if a public officer has committed a \u201cfaute\u201d in the discharge of his duties, this will constitute a \u201cfaute de service\u201d, entitling the public officer to the special protection afforded to him under Section 2 of the State Proceedings Act. However, if the public officer has committed a reprehensible act which falls clearly outside the realm of his duties, then he commits a \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d. He is personally liable for the tort he committed and does not benefit from the protection of the State Proceedings Act. See the case of Samrandine (supra).<\/p>\n

13. In the case of Vallet v The Mauritius Housing Corporation [1970 SCJ 91], cited with approval in Jaggaseeah (supra), the distinction between \u201cfaute de service\u201d and \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d and the importance of such a demarcation were clearly explained. The relevant extract reads as follows:-<\/p>\n

\u201cNow the reason for granting such an immunity to public or quasi-public officers is well explained in Savatier, Responsabilit\u00e9 Civile, I, para. 224:<\/p>\n

Immunit\u00e9 relative des fonctionnaires. Si les fonctionnaires sont soumis \u00e0 la responsabilit\u00e9 de droit commun, dans les activit\u00e9s qu'ils exercent en tant que particuliers, il n\u2019en est pas de m\u00eame dans l'Administration qu'ils servent. D'abord, le fonctionnaire y jouissant d'une moindre libert\u00e9 que les personnes priv\u00e9es, sa faute est souvent difficile \u00e0 d\u00e9tacher des instructions qu'il y recoit, et du fait des autres agents de son service. Ensuite, la port\u00e9e de ses actes pouvant \u00eatre consid\u00e9rable, les cons\u00e9quences d'une responsabilit\u00e9 civile de droit commun seraient, pour lui, disproportionn\u00e9es, en equit\u00e9, avec la r\u00e9mun\u00e9ration qu'il re\u00e7oit<\/p>\n

de l'Etat; \u00e0 plus forte raison, avec la gratuit\u00e9 de ses services, s'il n\u2019a pas de traitement. Enfin, la rigueur de cette responsabilit\u00e9 nuirait \u00e0 l'int\u00e9r\u00eat public, l'Etat risquant de ne plus trouver de fonctionnaires, \u00e0 moins d'augmenter leur traitement \u00e0 proportion; et l'initiative des fonctionnaires pouvant \u00eatre paralys\u00e9e par la crainte des responsabilit\u00e9s.<\/p>\n

Bearing those factors in mind, the Courts worked out the principle that public servants are civilly liable for their "fautes personnelles", but personally exempt for mere "fautes de service". "Par faute de service, on doit entendre les n\u00e9gligences, les omissions, les erreurs, qui bien que r\u00e9prehensibles, sont dans les habitudes du service, et par cons\u00e9quent ne sont pas d\u00e9tachables du service\u201d[Hauriou, Pr\u00e9cis de Droit Administratif, p. 528]. \u201cLa faute personnelle, c'est celle qui r\u00e9v\u00e8le non un administrateur plus ou moins sujet \u00e0 erreur, mais l'homme, avec ses faiblesses, ses passions, ses imprudences\u201d. [Laferriere, Trait\u00e9 de la Juridiction Administrative, I, p.648].\u201d<\/p>\n

[underlining is mine]<\/p>\n

14. Furthermore, it is important for the court to examine the conduct of the public officer and the circumstances in which the officer acted the way he did. In the case of Neewoor (supra), the Supreme Court made the following observation:-<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the heart of the distinction between a \u201cfaute de service\u201d and a \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d is in our view, the conduct of the agent of the public authority and the context in which it takes place. If such conduct is justified and reasonable in the circumstances, then he has committed a \u201cfaute de service\u201d and is not liable for damages caused by such conduct. On the other hand, if his conduct is excessive, unjustified and unwarranted, then he has committed a \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d and he will be liable for damages caused by such conduct.\u201d<\/p>\n

15. I find it also apposite to refer to an extract from JurisClasseur Civil, Art. 1382 \u00e0 1386, Responsabilite du fait d\u2019autrui, Fasc. 143, Note 44 which is as follows:- \u201c44. \u2013 Les actes accomplis gr\u00e2ce aux moyens fournis par l\u2019employeur. \u2013Il ne fait aucun doute que le salari\u00e9 qui cause un dommage pendant son temps de travail, sur son lieu de travail, \u00e0 l\u2019aide des moyens mis \u00e0 disposition par son employeur et dans l\u2019ex\u00e9cution des t\u00e2ches que ce dernier lui a confi\u00e9 agit pleinement dans le cadre de ses fonctions.\u201d<\/p>\n

16. As per the testimony of Mr Ajodah and Mr Maudhoo, who were called as witnesses for the Plaintiff, a senior officer can report a junior officer in case of any wrongdoing or breach of the Standing Instructions. In such an event, an entry to that effect is inserted in the Diary Book 3 . Here, the Defendant testified that when he attended work and took over from the shift of Plaintiff, he witnessed the latter committing a breach of the Standing Instructions and a forgery in his presence. The Defendant maintained that the Plaintiff inserted the departures for two officers in the Diary Book at a time when those officers were not physically present at work. On the whole, I find no reason to doubt the Defendant\u2019s testimony which was coherent and credible.<\/p>\n

17. It is not denied that the Defendant, as SFPO, holds a higher rank than the Plaintiff. There is, accordingly, nothing improper which occurred when the Defendant reported the Plaintiff, a subordinate officer, for any misconduct that Defendant reasonably believed had been committed. In addition, the Defendant did not act behind the back of his superior. The Diary Book entries of the Defendant were addressed to Mr Cunnee, the Inspector-in-charge of the Fisheries Post, who confirmed in court that he was aware of the incident and of the entries made at the time. Moreover, the Defendant maintained that he sent the letter of complaint to the Ministry (Document N) upon the instructions of Mr Cunnee.<\/p>\n

18. Bearing in mind the legal principles enunciated above, it is clear that the Defendant\u2019s acts and doings were \u201cjustified and reasonable in the circumstances\u201d and cannot be said to have exceeded the normal scope of his duties as an SFPO. I find that the acts of reporting a subordinate officer for a malpractice \u201csont dans les habitudes du service, et par cons\u00e9quent ne sont pas d\u00e9tachables du service.\u201d Moreover, if \u201cfaute\u201d there is by the Defendant, then it has been committed \u00ab pendant son temps de travail, sur son lieu de travail, \u00e0 l\u2019aide des moyens mis \u00e0 disposition par son employeur et dans l\u2019ex\u00e9cution des t\u00e2ches que ce dernier lui a confi\u00e9 \u00bb. As such, the only reproach that, at best, could have been laid at the door of the Defendant is that of a \u201cfaute de service\u201d<\/p>\n

3 Page 23 of the transcript for the sitting of the 13 th of December 2024.<\/p>\n

and not a \u201cfaute personnelle\u201d. I therefore find that the proecipe has been wrongly entered against the Defendant in his personal name and that no joinder of the Ministry as an interested party can cure this defect.<\/p>\n

19. As regards the lack of averment of \u201cbad faith\u201d in the proecipe, I agree with Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff that there is no need for the term \u201cbad faith\u201d to be explicitly used in the proecipe, provided that \u201csufficient facts constituting the alleged \u201cfaute lourde\u201d or bad faith had been averred which, if found proved, would have established \u201cfaute lourde\u201d or bad faith such as to form the basis of an action in damages\u201d \u2013 vide Dooboree v The State of Mauritius & Anor [2020 SCJ 207]. On the basis of this principle, I find that the averments contained in Paragraph 10 of the proecipe, namely that the allegations of the Defendant were \u201cmade with the calculated intention to undermine the Plaintiff\u2019s professional integrity\u201d, were sufficient, if proved, to establish bad faith on the part of the Defendant.<\/p>\n

20. However, I find that nowhere in the proecipe did the Plaintiff aver that the entries made by the Defendant in the Diary Book (Documents A, A1 and A2), which constitute the root of the claim against the Defendant, are false. Irrespective of the prevailing health issues and the reason why Plaintiff decided to enter the entries, it was important for Plaintiff\u2019s case to establish the falsity of the Defendant\u2019s complaints. Yet, I note that the Plaintiff did not state, at any point in time during his examination in chief, that the entries he inserted in relation to the departure of FPOs Rampersad and Lallmamode were correct and true and that the ensuing entries of Defendant accusing him of forgery were unfounded and false. It was only in cross examination when the question was put to him that the FPOs Rampersad and Lallmamode were not present at the material time that Plaintiff denied same and stated that, though they were not in the office, they were \u201cupstairs\u201d on the premises.<\/p>\n

21. I further note that neither FPO Rampersad nor FPO Lallmamode was called as witness by the Plaintiff to confirm that they were present at those material times and establish the veracity of the entries made by the Plaintiff. In the light of the<\/p>\n

above, I therefore find that the Plaintiff has not been able to prove on a balance of probabilities that the entries and complaint made by the Defendant were false and that the latter acted in bad faith in reporting him.<\/p>\n

22. For all the reasons given, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to establish his case against the Defendant. I therefore dismiss the proecipe. With costs.<\/p>\n

10 th April 2026<\/p>\n

Y. NATHIRE BEEBEEJAUN Magistrate Intermediate Court<\/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 Alighan v Karia 2026 INT 85 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of: CN 433\/2021 Asraf ALIGHAN PLAINTIFF v. Souriesing KARIA DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for damages on the ground of \u201cfaute\u201d. At the material time, Plaintiff was working as Fisheries Protection Officer (FPO) at Grand Gaube Fisheries Post and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":[],"kji_country":[92666],"kji_court":[92667],"kji_chamber":[92706],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7646],"kji_keyword":[92902,8601,92903,15757,15594],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-919435","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-maurice","kji_court-supreme-court-of-mauritius","kji_chamber-mrs-y-nathire-beebeejaun-magistrate-intermediate-court","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-divers","kji_keyword-alighan","kji_keyword-avril","kji_keyword-karia","kji_keyword-mauritius","kji_keyword-supreme","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court of Mauritius, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 - Alighan v Karia - 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-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/\" \/>\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, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 - Alighan v Karia\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1 Alighan v Karia 2026 INT 85 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of: CN 433\/2021 Asraf ALIGHAN PLAINTIFF v. Souriesing KARIA DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for damages on the ground of \u201cfaute\u201d. At the material time, Plaintiff was working as Fisheries Protection Officer (FPO) at Grand Gaube Fisheries Post and...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/\" \/>\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=\"15 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-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\\\/\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 - Alighan v Karia - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-18T10:48:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/en\\\/jurisprudences\\\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\\\/#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, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 – Alighan v Karia\"}]},{\"@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, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 - Alighan v Karia - 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-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 - Alighan v Karia","og_description":"1 Alighan v Karia 2026 INT 85 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (Civil Division) In the matter of: CN 433\/2021 Asraf ALIGHAN PLAINTIFF v. Souriesing KARIA DEFENDANT JUDGMENT 1. The Plaintiff is suing the Defendant for damages on the ground of \u201cfaute\u201d. At the material time, Plaintiff was working as Fisheries Protection Officer (FPO) at Grand Gaube Fisheries Post and...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/","name":"Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 - Alighan v Karia - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-18T10:48:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/supreme-court-of-mauritius-10-avril-2026-2026-int-85-alighan-v-karia\/#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, 10 avril 2026, 2026 INT 85 – Alighan v Karia"}]},{"@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\/919435","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=919435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=919435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=919435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=919435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=919435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=919435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=919435"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=919435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}