{"id":290826,"date":"2026-05-27T18:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-27T16:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290826"},"modified":"2026-06-02T14:28:06","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T12:28:06","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-mauritius","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/27\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-mauritius\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year In Review – Mauritius"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Alexis Merle<\/strong>, Founder, Merle Practice<\/strong>, Registrar, Mediation and Arbitration Center (Mauritius) Ltd (\u201cMARC\u201d)<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Mauritius<\/a>\u00a0continues to position itself as a credible and arbitration-friendly seat for international disputes, particularly those connected to Africa-related commerce and investment. Its arbitration regime remains anchored in the\u00a0International Arbitration Act 2008<\/a>, a statute closely modelled on the\u00a0<\/em>UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985<\/em><\/a>, and is supported by a judiciary that has regularly demonstrated deference to party autonomy,\u00a0Kompetenz-Kompetenz<\/a>, and the finality of arbitral awards.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The year 2025 did not bring structural legislative reform. Instead, it was marked by judicial and institutional developments. A series of Supreme Court decisions clarified the scope of court intervention in support of arbitration agreements, the consequences of defective arbitration clauses, and the treatment of enforcement and security issues at the post-award stage. In parallel, institutional innovation emerged through the launch of the\u00a0MARC Mediation Rules 2025\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0MARC\u2019s\u00a0Protocol on Mediation for Climate Change-Related Disputes<\/a>, currently the only dedicated protocol worldwide addressing environmental disputes through mediation, situating Mauritius at the forefront of climate-conscious dispute resolution.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Anti\u2011Suit Injunctions and the Protection of the Parties\u2019 Agreement to Arbitrate<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

SBM Africa Holdings Ltd v Khimji S<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>[2025 SCJ 445]<\/em><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In\u00a0SBM Africa Holdings Ltd v Khimji S [2025 SCJ 445]<\/a><\/em>, the Supreme Court of Mauritius delivered one of its most authoritative pronouncements to date on the availability of anti-suit injunctions in support of international arbitration, confirming its willingness to act decisively to protect the integrity of the negative and positive obligations arising from the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute arose from a share acquisition governed by a Sale and Purchase Agreement containing an\u00a0LCIA-MIAC (London International Court of Arbitration – Mauritius International Arbitration Centre)<\/a>\u00a0arbitration clause with Mauritius as the seat. Notwithstanding this agreement, the respondent commenced anti-suit proceedings in Kenya and sought relief aimed at preventing the applicant from initiating arbitration. The applicant applied to the Supreme Court of Mauritius for an anti-suit injunction restraining the respondent from pursuing litigation in any forum in breach of the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A panel of three designated judges, constituted under section 42 of the\u00a0International Arbitration Act 2008<\/a>\u00a0(the \u201cIAA<\/strong>\u201d), granted the injunction. The Court restrained the respondent not only from continuing existing foreign proceedings, but also from commencing, procuring, or assisting any proceedings outside arbitration in relation to the dispute. The breadth of the relief granted underscores the Court\u2019s view that anti-suit injunctions serve to enforce both the positive obligation to arbitrate and the negative obligation not to litigate elsewhere.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court\u2019s reasoning reflects a clear presumption in favour of enforcing arbitration agreements. Relying expressly on the Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SPA [1995] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 87<\/em> (The Angelic Grace) and subsequent English and Privy Council authority, the Court held that where foreign proceedings are brought in breach of a valid and operative arbitration clause, an anti-suit injunction will ordinarily follow unless the respondent can demonstrate strong reasons why such relief should be refused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The burden of persuasion thus lies squarely on the party seeking to escape the arbitral forum to which it contractually committed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of particular significance is the Court\u2019s confirmation (by reference to\u00a0Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk<\/a><\/em>) that its jurisdiction to grant anti-suit relief derives from the contractual right to arbitrate, rather than from the existence of pending arbitral proceedings. Anti-suit injunctions may therefore be granted even before arbitration has been formally commenced, provided that the arbitration agreement is valid and the relief sought is necessary to prevent its frustration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In exercising its discretion, the Court placed considerable weight on the need to avoid parallel and duplicative proceedings, which it regarded as inherently vexatious where they undermine an agreed dispute resolution mechanism. It also emphasised the importance of promptness, noting that applicants must act before foreign proceedings have advanced to a stage where injunctive relief would risk undue interference or procedural unfairness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court further rejected potential arguments based on international comity, reiterating that an anti-suit injunction is directed at the litigant rather than the foreign court and does not purport to restrain the exercise of foreign judicial authority. Finally, it ordered the respondent to pay the applicant\u2019s costs on an indemnity basis, recognising that the application had been rendered necessary by the respondent\u2019s breach of the arbitration agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Pathological Arbitration Clauses, Parallel Proceedings, and the Limits of Tribunal Discretion<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n