Surendra Dayal v Pravind Kumar Jugnauth and 5 others (Mauritius)

Surendra Dayal v Pravind Kumar Jugnauth and 5 others (Mauritius)

Promises of increased pensions and public sector pay, made openly as part of a party manifesto and not as private bargains, do not constitute bribery under section 64(1) of the Act. Provision of food and drink at an annual government event, not organised by the candidates and without evidence of corrupt intent or effect, does not constitute treating under section 64(2). The Supreme Court correctly applied the law and dismissed the petition.

Parties
Appellant: Surendra Dayal; First Respondent: Pravind Kumar Jugnauth; Second Respondent: Mr Luchoomun; Third Respondent: Mr Sawmynaden; Fourth Respondent: Electoral Supervisory Commission (ESC); Fifth Respondent: Fifth Respondent; Sixth Respondent: Sixth Respondent
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Election Petition Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Bribery in Elections, Treating in Elections, Statutory Interpretation, Electoral Manifestos, Corrupt Practices, Freedom of Expression in Elections
Election Law Constitutional Law Bribery in Elections Treating in Elections Statutory Interpretation Electoral Manifestos Corrupt Practices Freedom of Expression in Elections

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Surendra Dayal

Appellant

Pravind Kumar Jugnauth

First Respondent

Mr Luchoomun

Second Respondent

Mr Sawmynaden

Third Respondent

Electoral Supervisory Commission (ESC)

Fourth Respondent

Fifth Respondent

Fifth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Sixth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment (privy Council)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether promises to increase pensions and public sector pay constituted bribery under section 64(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1958 (Mauritius)
  2. 2 Whether provision of free food and drink at a government event constituted treating under section 64(2) of the Act
  3. 3 Proper interpretation of 'bribery' and 'treating' in the context of electoral campaigning

Ratio Decidendi

Promises of increased pensions and public sector pay, made openly as part of a party manifesto and not as private bargains, do not constitute bribery under section 64(1) of the Act. Provision of food and drink at an annual government event, not organised by the candidates and without evidence of corrupt intent or effect, does not constitute treating under section 64(2). The Supreme Court correctly applied the law and dismissed the petition.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed on all grounds.