Supreme Court of Mauritius, 10 avril 2026, 2026 RDR 73 – Police v Kokill

1 of 2

Police v Kokill

2026 RDR 73

CN: 819/2022

THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIVIERE DU REMPART

In the matter of:-

Police

v.

Kemraj Kokill

JUDGMENT

Accused is prosecuted on an information for the offence of breach of a temporary restrictions of movement order under sections 3 and 13 of the Quarantine Act 2020 coupled with paragraphs 3 and 7 of the Temporary Restrictions of Movement Order [GN No. 512 of 2021].

The offence was allegedly committed at Coastal Road, St François, on 23.03.2021 (“the material date”). Accused pleaded not guilty and was represented by Counsel. Police Prosecutor conducted the case for Prosecution. Proceedings were held in Creole.

Paragraph 4(1) of GN No. 512 of 2021 provides for the extension of the Temporary Restrictions of Movement Order from 25 March 2021 at 8 p.m. to 31 March 2021 at 8 p.m., such that no person shall remain outdoor in Mauritius until 31 March 2021 at 8 p.m, for the purposes of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

Paragraph 5(b) of GN No. 512 of 2021 provides that paragraph 4 shall not apply to a person who is, pursuant to the COVID-19 (Closing Down of Premises and Restriction of Activities) Regulations 2021, authorised to be outdoor strictly on allocated days or authorised to carry out specific activities.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Third Schedule of the COVID-19 (Closing Down of Premises and Restriction of Activities) Regulations 2021 provides that access to commercial premises shall be controlled on the principle of alphabetical categorisation of customers, and “all customers will be able to shop strictly on allocated days as indicated hereunder – Surname starting from –

2 of 2

A-F (Monday and Thursday) G-N (Tuesday and Friday) O-Z (Wednesday and Saturday)”

Here, the case for Prosecution rests essentially on witness no. 2, PS 6945 Baurun. It transpires from his testimony that there was a temporary restriction order due to COVID-19 pandemic, Accused told him that he went to do plumbing works at Cap Malheureux and was proceeding towards Poste de Flacq on the material date, and he had no authorisation. During cross-examination, witness no. 2 stated that he is not aware if Accused moved to Bain Boeuf as from 09.03.2021, and he could not remember if during that period people were entitled to go out as per alphabetical order. When asked about the fact that people were allowed to go to supermarket as per alphabetical order, he replied that people can go to the supermarket where they live.

PS 7742 Mungroo was called as witness no. 1. He read and produced the statement recorded by Accused on 27.05.2021. Same was marked as Doc A. He confirmed that there was a lockdown, people could go to supermarket as per alphabetical order, and 23.03.2021 was a Tuesday. He conceded that by virtue of GN No. 512 of 2021 people with surnames starting from G to N were entitled to go outside on Tuesdays. When it was put to him that there is no offence against Accused, he replied: “as per the Notice, no”.

Accused testified under solemn affirmation that he was working for a client, the latter requested him to stay in his bungalow at Bain Boeuf, he went there 1 or 2 days before the lockdown, he had to go to the supermarket and pharmacy, and he was allowed to go out as it was a Tuesday. He denied the charge. He conceded that he told witness no. 2 about his profession.

The Court notes from paragraph 4 of GN No. 512 of 2021 that the prohibition to remain outdoor was extended up to 31 March 2021 at 8 p.m, and Accused admitted that he was outside on the material date. However, paragraph 5(b) of GN No. 512 of 2021, read together with paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule of the COVID-19 (Closing Down of Premises and Restriction of Activities) Regulations 2021, provides for a derogation to the prohibition. As such, persons having their surnames starting from letters G to N are allocated Tuesdays and Fridays to go outside to shop.

In the case at hand, it would appear that Accused was entitled to go supermarket and pharmacy on the material date, which was a Tuesday, given that his surname begins with the letter K. Prosecution relied on the testimony of witness no. 2 that Accused went out to work without permit to work, and this is denied by Accused under solemn affirmation. The latter pointed out that he went to supermarket and pharmacy.

In Goburdhun v The Queen [1956 MR 503] the Supreme Court made the following observations: “When, therefore, the sum total of the evidence in the case is taken into account, there was, in effect, the word of the victim as against the denial of the appellant. It is in such a case, particularly, that the principle of the presumption of innocence comes into operation. The application of that principle in every criminal case is the foundation of the right of the accused person to insist that the prosecution should discharge the onus that rests upon it to prove that he is guilty.”.

In the current circumstances, the Court finds it unsafe to pronounce a conviction, and the Court grants Accused the benefit of the doubt. Accordingly, the case against him is dismissed.

Z Cassamally (Dr)

3 of 2

Ag. Senior District Magistrate 10.04.2026