2. I was called to the Mauritian Bar on 30 October 1975 and was in regular
private practice ever since except for two short periods when I was
appointed Crown Counsel and suspended from practice for one year until
my name was, on 30 January 2008, struck off the Roll of Law Practitioners.
5. The aid motion was listed by the Registry to 02 May 2011and was also set
out on the Roll of the Chief Usher. Respondent was Ag Chief Justice
despatching all formal matters instead and in lieu of the Chief Justice
in Court No.1 on 02 May 2011.
6. The matter was called accordingly and I moved for Leave to appear
personally in order to move in terms of my motion. Law Officers Madhub
and Maghooa were equally on their feet and before any statement was
made by them [their clients were not present in Court in the said
contempt proceedings] I reproduce the verbatim exchange between
Respondent and I as far as I re-call since I have been informed that there
is no record of the case in the Registry of the Court as I was shut out from
making my motion:-
“Respondent: Before I grant you leave, you have to amend some of the
averments of your affidavit;
Applicant: May I be informed which part/s of the affidavit;
Respondent: Paragraph 1 and in paragraph 2: …outrageously struck off
the Roll of Law Practitioners; in the Supreme Court such averments cannot
be accepted;
Applicant: This is no reason but in any event, I am prepared to make a
statement that I shall waive that part of the paragraph which is not
agreeable to you;
Respondent: This must be by way of an affidavit and you may come any
time, the doors of the Supreme Court is always open, I shall give you
leave, the Supreme Court in not Ritz Hotel; you are intelligent enough;
Mr Usher call the next case…”
8. I aver that the reason set out for refusing me leave to appear in person is
against the express provisions of statutory and Constitutional provisions
and there was no valid reason invoked by Respondent when he refused
me leave to appear in person. Respondent ought to have allowed the
legal representatives of the parties to take any appropriate stand and not
jump into the ring thereby leaving the impression that Respondent held a
brief for the Prime Minister and the Attorney General or that he used a
colourable device simply to have the matter delayed pending the
proclamation of the Courts’ Amendment Bill No. 1 of 2011 [Vexatious
Litigation] which went through third reading on 12 April 2011 and is
awaiting Presidential Assent.
10. I aver that I am entitled to make such averments and the granting
of leave to appear in person has no relevance to such averments.
However, in order not to embarrass any other Judge, I have
personally decided not to aver same in this affidavit and I maintain
that I am innocent.
11. I aver that before my above matter was called, there was another
motion for contempt by Barclays Leasing Co. Ltd v V Chummun and
others which was called for the first time. The Usher called the
names of all Respondents and as I represented Respondent No.2 in
4
13. I further aver that following the setting aside of my application for
contempt against the Chief Justice on 4 November 2010,
Respondent and the other Judge who comprised the bench have
been cited as Co-Respondents in connection with their breach of
Articles 4 and 5 of the Civil Code, in my application for permission
to appeal the order of 4 November 2010 was issued on 12 January
2011 to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council [Re JCPC
2011/0002
E. And make any other order as the justice of the case may require.
Drawn up by me Before Me
D Hurnam/Applicant In Person
6