Dhamanraj Sunnassee (Appellant) v Marise Anne Suzy Fanor and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0117

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

Dhamanraj Sunnassee

Respondent(s)

Marise Anne Suzy Fanor and Paul Cyril Josian Marie

Issue

Were the courts below wrong to order the appellant to quit, leave and vacate the flat which he had been leasing from the respondents?

Facts

The appellant was the occupying tenant of a first floor flat in a residential building in Mauritius. The respondents were the landlords of the flat. By a Proecipe (claim) dated 23 May 2017, the respondents sought the appellant’s eviction from the flat, on the ground that they intended to return to Mauritius from abroad and therefore reasonably required the flat for their personal use and occupation. The appellant resisted the respondents’ application. At the trial of the respondents’ claim in the District Court, the appellant was initially represented by Me. Jaddoo. After the first respondent had given evidence in chief, the appellant informed the judge (“the Magistrate”) that he did not wish Me. Jaddoo to present his case. He requested a postponement, which the Magistrate did not agree to. Me. Jaddoo then withdrew from the case, and the appellant did not cross-examine the first respondent. The appellant therefore did not challenge the respondents’ evidence, and neither did he adduce evidence of his own. After considering the evidence before her, the Magistrate held that the respondents had established that they had a genuine present need of the premises and that an eviction order was therefore reasonable in the circumstances. The appellant appealed against that decision to the Supreme Court of Mauritius. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

20 November 2025

Case origin

PTA

Permission to Appeal

Justices

Lord Briggs

Lord Hamblen

Lord Burrows

Permission to Appeal decision date

30 January 2026

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

The application does not raise an arguable point of law or a point of law of general public importance. The Court of Appeal was correct to refuse permission to appeal as of right, for the reasons which it gave.

Back to top