Supreme Court of Mauritius, 13 mai 2026, 2026 MOK 24 – Police v sookye

Police v sookye

2026 MOK 24

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF MOKA

CN:5176/23

Police v Umayrr Saaqib SOOKYE

Judgment

Accused is being prosecuted for driving without due care and attention in breach of Section 123 C (1)(a) (2) and 52 coupled with Second schedule of the Road Traffic Act.

He pleaded not guilty and was represented by Counsel.

The prosecution produced the following documents: 1. 2 NLTA certificates marked as Doc A and A1 2. Defence Statement of accused dated 24.2.20- Doc B 3. Rough sketch made by witness 1 – Doc C 4. A second defence statement of accused dated 23.5.23 – Doc D 5. 2 Road accident reports of the 2 vehicles involved- Doc E and E1

Witness 1 was called. He produced the defence statement of accused -Doc B and the rough sketch Doc C. He confirmed that he attended the locus some 15 mins after the accident. The road was dry and not under repairs. On spot, he noted that both vehicles involved were heavily damaged. Witness 4’s vehicle had partly entered in the veranda of a shop.

In a gist, the accused, in his first defence statement, stated that on the material date, at around 15.45 hrs, he was driving the vehicle , bearing registration number 11, along Royal Road Montagne Blanche leaving Sebastepol and going towards Melrose. He had dropped a few friends at the bus stop. He had stopped behind a car 478 CZ 13 which had stopped behind a bus. He saw that the opposite lane was clear and saw the car infront of him had its flasher on to overtake the bus which was stationary. The accused also put his flasher and hooted so that the car in front of him could emerge. He hooted a second time for the car to overtake the bus. Upon seeing that the car was not overtaking the bus, he emerged behind the car to overtake both the car and the bus. He started overtaking when the car in front of him emerged. He honked a third time to alert the vehicle but the vehicle knocked against the left side of his car and stopped in a shop on the right side. Both cars were damaged.

The witness was cross examined. He confirmed that as per her version, witness 4 stated that the accused knocked at the rear of her vehicle. Overtaking was allowed at that spot. He stated that Witness 4 could not show any point of impact as she was terrified following the collision.

Witness 2 was called. He produced the second defence statement of accused. In a gist, accused reiterated that he honked twice but did not see the car overtaking the bus and he overtook the vehicle and the latter emerged at the same time. He denied the charge against him. The witness was not cross examined.

Witness 3, the examiner was called. He did not note any damage at the rear of the vehicle of witness 4.

Witness 4 was called. She narrated that on the material day, she was going to her place. There were several vehicles in front of her. There was a bus which was stationary. She and several other cars were behind the bus. She had put her flasher in order to overtake the bus and the vehicles in front of her had already done so. She verified whether there was any incoming vehicles before overtaking and also whether there were other road users as it was peak time. There was a car behind her which was honking. She checked in her rear view mirror and saw that it was a yellow vehicle. She felt that the yellow car had damaged her vehicle at the rear door on the right side. Her vehicle was then propelled on the right side of the road, on the pavement. Her vehicle damaged items in a shop. She was panicked and scared. Her car suffered damages.

She was cross examined. She maintained her version given in court. She stated that she was checking if it was safe to overtake the bus before doing so. The accused had knocked against the rear right door of her vehicle and she saw accused putting road markings. She confirmed that there was an impact. She recollect damages at the rear door. She also confirms damages on the right front side of her vehicle. She confirmed that she had put her flasher and was going to overtake and the accused was hooting. She denied that the accident occurred due to her imprudence.

The defence did not adduce any evidence.

Defence counsel submitted.

The court has considered the evidence elicited by the prosecution in the form of witness testimony as well as the documentary evidence which have been produced. I have also considered the answers given by the prosecution witnesses in cross-examination and the out-of-court version of the accused during the enquiry.

In a case like the present one, the court is aware that the test is one of objectivity, that is, the court needs to assess whether, by his conduct, the accused has departed from the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in the particular circumstances.

Reliance is sought from the case of Chadee v State (2011 SCJ 149), wherein the Supreme Court held: “On a charge of imprudence, the focus should not be on the choice of versions between that of the prosecution and the defence but whether objectively speaking the driver in question may be stated to have driven his motor vehicle with the standard required in the given conditions of light, weather, time and traffic as revealed generally by the particular facts and circumstances of the case of which the trial court is the sovereign judge. The test is an objective one as decided in McCrone v Riding [1938] 1 All ER 157. What the prosecution has to prove is “that the defendant has departed from the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case”.”

In Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences, “careless driving” is defined as follows: “…departing from the standard of driving which would be exercised by a reasonable, prudent, competent driver in all circumstances of the particular case. It follows that a person who drives without reasonable consideration for other road users can be convicted of driving without due care and attention.

It is undisputed that the accused’s vehicle was behind the vehicle of witness 4 and the latter was behind a bus which was stationary. As confirmed by the accused in his out of court statement and witness 4, witness 4 had put on her flasher to overtake the bus in front of her. Accused had been hooting and at some point accused overtook both the vehicle of witness 4 and the bus.

It has not gone unnoticed that witness 4 stated that the accused had knocked against her vehicle at the rear door at the right side and as per the pf70, the damages to her vehicle were seen in the front part of her vehicle. I do not find that this inconsistency has in any way whatsoever, undermined the evidence of witness 4. She has deponed in a clear and consistent manner and has clearly explained the circumstances of the accident which are more or less consistent with the version of the accused. The minor contradictions highlighted in cross examination did not undermine her evidence.

Accused defence is that he honked twice before emerging behind the vehicle of witness 4. Accused knew fully well that witness 4 had put on her flasher in an intention to overtake the bus. Yet he took it upon himself, to overtake both vehicles in front of him. I find that the accused fell below the standard required of a reasonable and prudent driver. Accused should not have overtook the vehicle given that the

flasher was still on which indicates the intention of witness 4 to overtake the bus. The mere fact that he hooted three times does not discharge him of his responsibilities as a reasonable and prudent driver.

Hence the court finds by his conduct, the accused has departed from the standard of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in the particular circumstances. The Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Accused is found guilty as charged.

G.Rampoortab Senior District Magistrate 13.5.26