Judicial Review of Public Decisions in Mauritius

Judicial review is the Supreme Court’s supervisory process for testing whether a public authority made a decision lawfully, fairly and within its powers. It does not ordinarily give the court a free choice to replace the authority’s decision with its own. The focus is on the legality of the decision-making process, including jurisdiction, fairness, reasons and relevant considerations.

What judicial review does and does not do

Judicial review asks whether the public body acted according to law, not whether the court would have made the same merits decision. It may be relevant to licensing, regulation, disciplinary action, procurement, immigration or local-government decisions, depending on the statutory setting. It is not usually an alternative appeal where an appeal mechanism exists and can address the complaint. The decision letter, the enabling statute, the record of the process and any available appeal route should be reviewed immediately.

Decisions open to challenge

A decision may be open to review where it has a public character and produces a legal effect, but labels can mislead. A private contract with a public body is not necessarily a public-law decision, and an internal step may not yet be final enough to challenge. Identify the actual decision-maker, the power relied on, the date of the decision and the practical consequences. Requests for reasons, records or reconsideration may be sensible, but they must not be used as an excuse for missing a procedural deadline.

Grounds: illegality, irrationality and procedural unfairness

Common grounds include acting outside a legal power, taking irrelevant matters into account, failing to consider a mandatory matter, reaching a legally irrational outcome, or using an unfair process. Procedural unfairness may include lack of notice, no meaningful opportunity to respond, apparent bias or a failure to follow a required procedure. These are not formulaic labels. Each ground must be tied to the actual statute, correspondence and evidence, rather than a general sense that the result feels wrong.

Applying for leave

Judicial-review proceedings usually begin with an application for leave. The purpose is to filter out claims without an arguable public-law basis before a full hearing. The application must identify the decision challenged, the legal grounds and the material relied upon. A concise affidavit and a properly ordered bundle often matter more than rhetoric. If urgent protective relief is needed, it must be sought with a clear explanation of the immediate harm and the impact on the public body or third parties.

Strict time limits

Time is often critical in public-law challenges. The applicable procedure may set a short period, and delay can independently affect whether relief is granted even where a complaint has substance. Do not assume that a complaint, a request for a meeting or an informal review stops time running. Obtain the decision and any reasons in writing, note the date received and seek advice without delay. This is one area where waiting for every document can be riskier than preserving the position promptly.

Evidence and affidavits

The starting material is usually the administrative record: application forms, notices, representations, minutes, emails, reasons and the legislation or policy applied. The affidavit should distinguish what the deponent knows personally from information and belief, and it should not speculate about an official’s motive without a factual basis. A dated chronology is particularly useful. It helps show what opportunity was actually given to make representations and what the decision-maker had before them.

Remedies the court can grant

The court may quash an unlawful decision, prohibit a proposed unlawful act, require a public authority to act where a duty exists, or make declaratory relief. It does not follow that a successful claimant receives the substantive benefit sought; often the matter is returned for lawful reconsideration. A stay or interim order may be essential if the decision will take effect before the challenge is heard. For that distinct remedy, see injunctions and interim orders.

Practical preparation before taking formal steps

A prompt written request for the decision, reasons and relevant record can be useful, but it must be managed alongside the strict timetable. Create a chronology from the initial application or complaint through every notice, meeting and email. Preserve the published policy or guideline said to apply, together with the statute or regulation that creates the power. The task is to identify a legal defect in a particular decision, not to produce a general criticism of the authority.

Consider alternative remedies early. A statutory appeal, internal review or tribunal may be more suitable for a factual or merits complaint, whereas judicial review can be important where the decision-maker acted outside its powers or the process was unfair. Urgent consequences—such as loss of a licence, removal action or a procurement step—should be described concretely. Do not allow an informal discussion to obscure a formal deadline.

Related resources: the civil and commercial law hub, data protection, cybercrime law, online defamation and legal aid.

Keep the requested outcome realistic. A challenge should identify whether the claimant seeks a pause, an order quashing the decision, a declaration or lawful reconsideration. It should also explain the effect on other interested persons. Public-law litigation is often more effective where it addresses the decision-making defect precisely and respects the limits of the court’s supervisory role.

Keep correspondence measured and focused on the decision and statutory framework. A carefully framed record of the objection can be valuable, whereas speculative allegations about motive can distract from a strong procedural or legal point.

This article is general legal information for Mauritius, not legal advice. For advice on your situation, consult a barrister.