Mauritius

Mauritius has established itself as a leading arbitration seat in Africa, bridging the continents of Africa and Asia. The jurisdiction offers a modern, UNCITRAL-based (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) legal framework, a pro-enforcement judiciary, an automatic right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and a strategic geographic and economic position. In 2018, the arbitral institution Delos listed Mauritius as the only safe seat of arbitration in the African Union among 40 safe seats worldwide. The jurisdiction’s mixed legal system — sourcing from the French civil code for private matters and from the English common law traditions for public law — is administered through a common law procedural system, enabling Mauritian courts to draw upon both traditions with remarkable flexibility and adaptability common to all hybrid legal systems.

1.1 Advantages

• Pro-enforcement judiciary. The Supreme Court consistently favours recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, intervening only where mandatory public policy breaches are clearly established.
• UNCITRAL Model Law foundation. The International Arbitration Act 2008 (IAA) is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, ensuring international familiarity and predictability.
• Automatic Privy Council appeal. The IAA provides an automatic right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (section 42), one of the most respected appellate bodies in the common law world.
• New York Convention with no reservations. Mauritius is a party to the 1958 New York Convention without any reservations, ensuring maximum enforceability of awards.
• PCA presence. The Permanent Court of Arbitration maintains an office in Mauritius with free hearing and meeting rooms for PCA-administered proceedings.
• Foreign counsel welcome. Section 31 of the IAA permits foreign lawyers qualified in international law and arbitration to appear in proceedings.
• Strategic location. Mauritius serves as a natural bridge between Africa and Asia, with extensive bilateral investment treaties, double tax avoidance agreements and membership of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
• Cost-effectiveness. Relative to traditional European seats, Mauritius offers a neutral, cost-effective venue for cross-border disputes.
• Institutional capacity. The Mauritian International Arbitration Centre’s (MIAC) expedited and emergency procedures have gained increasing traction, particularly in construction and energy sector arbitrations.

1.2 Disadvantages and common pitfalls

• Limited local arbitration bar. While the jurisdiction welcomes foreign counsel, the pool of locally qualified arbitration practitioners remains comparatively small.
• Dual-regime complexity. The existence of two separate arbitration regimes (the Code de Procédure Civile for domestic arbitration and the International Arbitration Act (IAA) for international arbitration) can create confusion if parties do not clearly specify which regime applies.
• Section 3(10) compliance. Practitioners must be alert to the prohibition in section 3(10) of the IAA, which provides that no recourse shall be had to domestic arbitration statutes, precedents or rules of procedure when applying the IAA.
• Emerging jurisprudence. While developing rapidly, the body of Mauritian arbitration case law remains more limited than that of longer-established seats such as London, Paris, or Singapore.

1.3 Distinctive features

Mauritius’s most distinctive feature is its mixed legal heritage, combining French civil law and English common law within a single jurisdiction. This enables law chambers and legal practitioners as well as the courts to draw on both traditions when interpreting arbitration law. The IAA expressly mandates recourse to UNCITRAL materials, reports, and Case Law on UNCITRAL Texts (CLOUT) database case law for its interpretation (section 3(9)), effectively constituting the three-judge bench of the Supreme Court as an UNCITRAL court sitting in the Mauritian jurisdiction. The jurisdiction’s geographic position at the crossroads of Africa and Asia, combined with 46 double tax avoidance agreements and 28 investment promotion and protection agreements, makes it particularly attractive for Africa- and Asia-related international commercial disputes.

2.1 Legal framework

The principal legislation governing international arbitration in Mauritius comprises the International Arbitration Act 2008, as amended in 2013 (IAA); the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001 (“New York Convention Act”); and the Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013. Domestic arbitration is governed separately under Articles 1003 to 1028 of the Code de Procédure Civile.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius has established a dedicated arbitration division, with a three-judge bench hearing international arbitration matters under sections 5 and 42 of the IAA. Matters under the IAA may be appealed as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London (section 42 of the IAA). That serves as a confidence booster of great value to international businesses, apart from the fact that it is a value add to Mauritian jurisprudence.

2.2 What qualifies under domestic law as “international arbitration”? Is there a specific statute?

Yes. The IAA is the specific statute governing international arbitration. An arbitration is “international” within the meaning of the IAA where one or more of the following features are present:

• an arbitral award is made in one jurisdiction and enforceable in another;
• the participants are citizens of different nations;
• the subject matter of the arbitration is “international”; or
• the dispute is of a “commercial” nature crossing jurisdictional borders.

Section 2B of the IAA incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law definition of international arbitration.

2.3 Ratification of the New York Convention

Mauritius has ratified the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) without any reservations. The Convention was domestically enacted through the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001. Rule 15 of the Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013 confirms that the New York Convention is applicable to all awards made under the IAA (section 40 of the IAA).

2.4 Ratification of the ICSID Convention

Mauritius has signed and ratified the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (“ICSID Convention”). This enables investor-state arbitration proceedings under the ICSID framework, complementing the jurisdiction’s network of 28 bilateral investment promotion and protection agreements.

2.5 Other treaties relating to arbitration

In addition to the New York Convention and the ICSID Convention, Mauritius’s treaty framework relevant to arbitration includes 28 Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements (IPPAs) and 46 Double Tax Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) with major African and Asian economies, including India, China, South Africa and Singapore. Mauritius is also a member of SADC, COMESA and AfCFTA, all of which may generate arbitration-relevant dispute resolution obligations. The 2009 PCA-Mauritius Host Country Agreement facilitates PCA-administered proceedings on the island.

2.6 Choice of forum for intra-EU dispute settlement

This question is not applicable to Mauritius. Mauritius is not a member of the European Union and accordingly the considerations arising from EU law regarding intra-EU arbitration (including the implications of the Achmea and Komstroy jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union) do not apply. However, they are of persuasive value in Mauritian jurisprudence. There are many laws which insist on the application of European Standards in professional practice and in the industry.

2.7 Is the municipal law governing arbitration based on the UNCITRAL Model Law?

Yes. The IAA is largely based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (section 2B of the IAA). Section 3(9) expressly provides that in applying and interpreting the IAA, recourse is to be had to the Amended Model Law, international materials thereon, reports of UNCITRAL, and case law from its CLOUT database. Section 3(10) further provides that no recourse shall be had to existing statutes, precedents, practices or rules relating to domestic arbitration.

2.8 Recent amendments or reforms in arbitration laws

The IAA was last substantively amended in 2013. No further legislative amendments have been introduced since. However, the Supreme Court (International Arbitration Claims) Rules 2013 continue to be applied without amendment. In practice, the judiciary has driven the evolution of the framework through significant case law developments, including the Privy Council’s decision in Betamax Ltd v. State Trading Corporation (Mauritius) [2021] UKPC 14, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Super-Max Mauritius v. Actis Consumer Grooming Products Ltd (2024 SCJ 44), and the landmark Laporte E.G.L. v. Laporte M.A.R. (2025 SCJ 35). The MIAC has also updated its digital-hearing protocols and introduced updated rules to reflect modern arbitration practice.

Three principal arbitration institutions are based in or operate from Mauritius, providing parties with a range of institutional options for the administration of their disputes.

3.1 Presence of local arbitration institutions

• Mauritius International Arbitration Centre (MIAC): The flagship arbitration institution, offering a full suite of arbitration rules including expedited and emergency procedures. MIAC has seen increased usage of its expedited rules and digital-hearing protocols, particularly in construction and energy sector arbitrations.
• MCCI Mediation and Arbitration Centre (MARC): Administered by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry, MARC provides mediation and arbitration services with a particular focus on commercial disputes with a regional dimension.
• Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): The PCA maintains a physical office in Port-Louis, Mauritius, providing hearing and meeting facilities free of charge for PCA-administered proceedings.

3.2 Does the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) have a local office?

No. The LCIA does not maintain a local office in Mauritius. However, LCIA-administered arbitrations may be seated in Mauritius and the MIAC facilities may be used for hearings.

3.3 Does the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) have a local office?

Yes. The PCA maintains an office in Port-Louis, Mauritius, pursuant to the 2009 PCA-Mauritius Host Country Agreement. The PCA Mauritius Office assists in discharging the Secretary-General’s functions under the IAA, promotes Mauritius as a venue for international arbitration throughout the region, and provides hearing and meeting rooms free of charge in PCA-administered proceedings. Under the IAA, the PCA may act as an appointing authority (section 12), be involved in challenges to arbitrators (section 14) and oversee the replacement of arbitrators (section 16).

3.4 Does the ICC International Court of Arbitration have a local office?

No. The ICC International Court of Arbitration does not maintain a local office in Mauritius. ICC-administered arbitrations may nonetheless be seated in Mauritius. However, with the existence of the IAA operating under the PCA, that need is not felt for the present.

3.5 Does the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) have a local office?

No. The ICDR does not maintain a local office in Mauritius.

3.6 Agreement entered into with local offices of international arbitration institutions

Mauritius has entered into the 2009 PCA-Mauritius Host Country Agreement, which establishes the framework of cooperation between the PCA and the Government of Mauritius. This agreement governs the PCA’s physical presence in Mauritius and defines the PCA’s role under the IAA.

The IAA, drawing on the UNCITRAL Model Law, establishes the requirements for valid arbitration agreements in the context of international arbitration seated in Mauritius.

4.1 Requirements as to content and form

An arbitration agreement must be in writing. This requirement is consistent with both the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. The Supreme Court confirmed in Happy World v. Hewlett-Packard (2010 SCJ 3) that an arbitration clause should be in writing. The agreement must identify the subject matter of potential disputes and the intention of the parties to submit them to arbitration. Electronic communications satisfying the writing requirement are recognised.

4.2 Validity of arbitration agreements

The doctrine of severability is recognised and well established. In Brinks Finance Holding SAS v. Société des Olives (2008 SCJ 101), the Supreme Court affirmed that the arbitration clause is separable from the main contract and may survive its invalidity. In Mauritian Estate Development Corporation v. Systems Building Ltd (2008 SCJ 69), the court held that parties are contractually bound to proceed to arbitration where they have agreed to do so. Capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement is determined by the general rules of contractual capacity under Mauritian law.

4.3 Special formalities

The IAA does not impose special formalities for the formation of arbitration agreements involving states or state entities. However, public procurement legislation may be relevant to contracts entered into by state bodies, as demonstrated in the Betamax case, where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, sitting on appeals in London on some of the big decisions of the Mauritian courts, ultimately held that the contract did not breach the 2006 Public Procurement Act.

4.4 Governing law

The law governing the arbitration agreement is generally determined by the parties’ express choice. Where the IAA applies, UNCITRAL principles govern the interpretation of the arbitration agreement (section 3(9)). The choice of Mauritius as the seat of arbitration will generally result in the IAA governing the procedural aspects of the arbitration. The substantive validity of the arbitration agreement may be governed by a different law where the parties have so agreed. The effect of section 3(10) ensures that domestic arbitration law becomes a standalone dispute resolution system distinct from that obtaining under the international arbitration agreements governed by the IAA.

Mauritian law does not impose broad restrictions on the types of disputes that may be submitted to arbitration. The IAA applies to commercial disputes of an international character.

5.1 Applicable restrictions

Under Mauritian law, matters involving public order, criminal law, and certain family law matters are generally considered non-arbitrable. Disputes concerning the status of persons, matters affecting public policy in a fundamental sense, and criminal proceedings cannot be resolved through arbitration. In practice, however, the scope of non-arbitrability is narrowly construed, consistent with the jurisdiction’s pro-arbitration stance. Commercial and investment disputes, including those involving state entities, are fully arbitrable as demonstrated by the extensive Betamax and CT Power litigation.

The Mauritian courts adopt a pro-enforcement approach to arbitration agreements, consistent with the IAA’s UNCITRAL Model Law foundations.

6.1 Stay of proceedings

Where proceedings are brought before the Mauritian courts in breach of an arbitration agreement, the court will generally grant a stay of proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration. The three-judge bench of the Supreme Court may decline to refer the matter to arbitration only where it determines, on a prima facie basis, that there is a strong probability that the arbitration agreement may be null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed (section 5 of the IAA). In Malaysian Airline System Berhad v. Airworld (2010 SCJ 352), the court held that an objection to proceed to arbitration was taken too late, reinforcing the principle that parties must raise jurisdictional objections promptly.

6.2 Anti-suit injunctions

The Mauritian courts have the power to grant injunctive relief in support of arbitration proceedings. In Food & Allied Industries v. Ujodha (2007 SCJ 99), the court held that an injunction may be granted so long as there is no encroachment on the merits of the case before the arbitrator. The courts exercise this jurisdiction with caution, consistent with the principle of party autonomy and the deference owed to the arbitral process.

The IAA establishes a flexible framework for the constitution of arbitral tribunals, with specific provisions for PCA involvement.

7.1 Restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators

The law of Mauritius does not impose restrictions on the parties’ freedom to choose arbitrators. Section 31 of the IAA expressly permits foreign lawyers qualified and experienced in international law and arbitration to participate in proceedings, and this openness extends to the selection of arbitrators.

7.2 Requirement of arbitrator independence and impartiality

The IAA, following the UNCITRAL Model Law, requires that arbitrators be and remain independent and impartial throughout the proceedings. An arbitrator must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence. These requirements apply from the time of appointment and continue throughout the arbitral proceedings.

7.3 Mandatory rules applicable to the appointment process

Under the IAA, the PCA may act as the appointing authority in default of party agreement (section 12). This is a distinctive feature of the Mauritian framework, providing a reliable default mechanism administered by a respected international institution.

7.4 Appointment mechanism in the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules

In the absence of party agreement or applicable institutional rules, the PCA may act as the appointing authority under section 12 of the IAA. The Supreme Court may also intervene to appoint arbitrators where necessary to ensure the constitution of the tribunal.

7.5 Mandatory rules applicable to the replacement process

The PCA may be involved in the replacement of arbitrators under section 16 of the IAA. The replacement process follows the UNCITRAL Model Law framework, and the parties’ agreement on the replacement mechanism takes precedence.

7.6 Mandatory disclosure obligations

An arbitrator is required to disclose, from the time of appointment and throughout the proceedings, any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to impartiality or independence. This obligation is consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law and reflects international best practice.

7.7 Grounds for challenge

An arbitrator may be challenged where circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence, or if the arbitrator does not possess qualifications agreed to by the parties. The PCA may be involved in matters dealing with challenges to arbitrators under section 14 of the IAA.

7.8 Mandatory rules governing the challenge of arbitrators

The IAA provides that challenges to arbitrators may be determined by the PCA in its capacity as appointing authority (section 14). The challenge process follows the UNCITRAL Model Law framework.

7.9 Removal

An arbitrator may be removed where he or she becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform the functions of office or fails to act without undue delay. The PCA’s role in the replacement of arbitrators (section 16) provides an institutional mechanism for orderly removal and replacement.

7.10 Liability and immunity of arbitrators

Mauritian law, consistent with international practice, provides that arbitrators acting in good faith enjoy immunity from civil liability for acts or omissions in the discharge of their functions. This immunity encourages qualified persons to accept appointment and supports the integrity of the arbitral process.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius provides supportive intervention in international arbitration proceedings seated in Mauritius, consistent with the IAA’s pro-arbitration framework. The three-judge bench exercises a supervisory and supportive role.

8.1 Interim measures

8.1.1 Overview of interim measures

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of arbitration proceedings. In Food & Allied Industries v. Ujodha (2007 SCJ 99), the court confirmed that injunctive relief is available provided there is no encroachment on the merits of the case before the arbitrator. In MPL(I) Ltd (in liq.) & Ors v. Leedon (2009 SCJ 92), the court held that an injunction may be granted in special circumstances against the continuance of arbitration proceedings.

8.1.2 Relevance of availability of emergency arbitrator mechanism

The MIAC rules provide for emergency arbitrator procedures, which have gained increasing traction. The availability of this mechanism may be considered by the courts when assessing applications for interim relief, as the courts generally prefer that parties exhaust institutional remedies before seeking court intervention.

8.2 Taking of evidence

The Supreme Court may provide assistance in the taking of evidence for arbitration proceedings seated in Mauritius, consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law framework. The court may order the attendance of witnesses, the production of documents, and other measures necessary to support the arbitral process.

8.3 Appointment or challenge of arbitrators

Where the PCA’s role as appointing authority under the IAA is not engaged, or where additional judicial intervention is necessary, the Supreme Court may assist in the appointment or challenge of arbitrators. In Mauritius Industries Ltd v. Excelsior United Development & Ors (2009 SCJ 422), the court held that it should hear some evidence before deciding the application of an arbitral clause.

8.4 Other available assistance

The Supreme Court may also grant declaratory relief in connection with arbitration proceedings and may provide assistance in securing the preservation of assets or evidence pending arbitration. The courts have consistently demonstrated a willingness to support the arbitral process without overstepping the boundaries of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

9.1 Domestic scope of sovereign immunity from jurisdiction

Mauritius does not have specific legislation comparable to the UK State Immunity Act 1978. Sovereign immunity from jurisdiction is governed by principles of customary international law as applied by the Mauritian courts. The courts recognise the distinction between acts jure imperii (sovereign acts) and acts jure gestionis (commercial acts). In respect of commercial arbitration, state entities that have consented to arbitration through an arbitration agreement are generally held to have waived sovereign immunity from jurisdiction, as illustrated by the Betamax litigation where the State Trading Corporation, a public body and trading arm of the government, was party to an arbitration clause. The fact that Mauritius does not have an army as such, its government model is one of facilitator of business rather than operator as such, the need for sovereign immunity from suit has not arisen. Indeed, one may sue the state so long as the procedural requirements are met.

9.2 Immunity from execution

Enforcement against state property may face limitations based on customary international law principles of sovereign immunity from execution. However, where a state entity has consented to arbitration and an award has been rendered, the Mauritian courts’ pro-enforcement stance suggests that execution will be facilitated. In the Betamax case, the Government of Mauritius paid USD 115 million in damages, interest and costs following the Privy Council’s ruling, demonstrating the jurisdiction’s commitment to honouring arbitral awards even against state entities.

The IAA, following the UNCITRAL Model Law, provides flexible procedural rules while maintaining fundamental safeguards. There is no requirement that hearings be held physically at the seat of arbitration; the MIAC’s digital-hearing protocols have been adopted for remote hearings, reflecting the global shift towards flexibility in international dispute resolution. Parties are entitled to equal treatment and a full opportunity to present their case. The tribunal has discretion to determine whether to hold oral hearings or to decide the case on the basis of documents and other materials, subject to any contrary agreement by the parties. Where a party fails to participate without showing sufficient cause, the tribunal may continue the proceedings and make an award on the evidence before it, consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law provisions on non-participation.

Arbitration proceedings in Mauritius are generally confidential. Unlike court proceedings, arbitral hearings are not public. Confidentiality is one of the recognised advantages of arbitration under Mauritian law. The parties may agree on the scope and extent of confidentiality obligations in their arbitration agreement or through the applicable institutional rules. The MIAC rules contain confidentiality provisions. Exceptions to confidentiality are recognised where disclosure is required by law, for the purpose of enforcing or challenging an award before the courts, or where the parties have otherwise agreed. There is no general statutory duty of transparency in commercial arbitration, although proceedings involving state entities or matters of significant public interest may attract greater scrutiny, as demonstrated by the public attention surrounding the Betamax and CT Power cases.

12.1 Requirements as to content and form

An arbitral award made under the IAA must be in writing and signed by the arbitrator or arbitrators. Where the tribunal comprises more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority are sufficient, provided that the reason for any omitted signature is stated. The award must state the reasons upon which it is based, unless the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given. The award must state its date and the place (seat) of arbitration.

12.2 Time limit

The IAA does not impose a statutory time limit for rendering an award. The time limit within which the award must be rendered is fixed by the parties and, in the absence of agreement, by the applicable arbitration rules. Under the domestic arbitration regime (CPC), the arbitrator must render the award within the time fixed by the compromise.

12.3 Remedies

Arbitrators may award any remedy that the parties have agreed may be awarded, or that the tribunal considers appropriate and consistent with the applicable law. This includes monetary damages, declarations, specific performance, interest and the allocation of costs. The Laporte decision (2025 SCJ 35) confirmed that third-party litigation funding costs may be awarded as “other costs” under an arbitration agreement, extending the range of recoverable costs in Mauritius-related arbitrations.

13.1 Interpretation and correction of awards

The IAA, following the UNCITRAL Model Law, permits a party to request the tribunal to correct computational, clerical or typographical errors in the award, or to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. Such requests must be made within 30 days of receipt of the award unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The tribunal may also correct errors on its own initiative within 30 days of the date of the award.

13.2 Challenge of an award

An award may be set aside by the Supreme Court on the grounds set out in the IAA, which mirror those in the UNCITRAL Model Law. These include:

• incapacity of a party or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• lack of proper notice or inability to present one’s case;
• the award dealing with matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
• improper composition of the tribunal or non-compliance with the arbitration agreement;
• the subject matter not being arbitrable under Mauritian law; and
• the award being in conflict with the public policy of Mauritius.

The application to set aside must be made within the time limits prescribed by the IAA. The public policy ground is narrowly construed and limited to breaches of fundamental public order, as confirmed in Betamax [2021] UKPC 14 and Laporte (2025 SCJ 35).

13.3 Recognition and enforcement proceedings

Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Mauritius is governed by section 39 of the IAA and section 3 of the New York Convention Act. An application for recognition and enforcement is made to the Supreme Court. The court’s consistent pro-enforcement stance means that recognition is the norm, with refusal being exceptional. In Super-Max Mauritius v. Actis (2024 SCJ 44), the court endorsed a substance-over-form approach and prevented belated technical challenges to enforcement. The grounds for refusing enforcement mirror those of the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

13.4 Cost of enforcement

The costs of enforcement proceedings before the Supreme Court are generally modest in comparison with those in other jurisdictions. Legal fees are subject to the general scale applicable to proceedings before the Supreme Court. The prevailing party may recover reasonable costs of the enforcement proceedings.

13.5 Enforcement of orders of emergency arbitrators

The MIAC rules provide for emergency arbitrator procedures. While there is no specific statutory provision in the IAA addressing the enforcement of emergency arbitrator orders, the courts’ supportive approach to arbitration suggests that such orders would be given appropriate effect, subject to the court’s general powers to grant interim relief in support of arbitral proceedings.

Mauritius is fully committed to the enforcement of New York Convention awards, having ratified the Convention without any reservations.

14.1 Process for enforcing New York Convention awards

An application for recognition and enforcement of a New York Convention award is made to the Supreme Court pursuant to section 3 of the New York Convention Act and section 39 of the IAA. The applicant must produce the duly authenticated original award or a certified copy, and the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy. Mauritius does not apply the Convention on a reciprocity basis; awards from all Convention states are enforceable without reservation.

14.2 Grounds for resisting enforcement of New York Convention awards

The grounds for resisting enforcement mirror those in Article V of the New York Convention:

• incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• lack of proper notice;
• the award exceeding the scope of the submission;
• improper composition of the tribunal;
• the award not yet being binding or having been set aside;
• non-arbitrability; and
• public policy.

The public policy ground is narrowly construed. In Betamax [2021] UKPC 14, the Privy Council confirmed the restrictive approach to public policy under Article V(2)(b), holding that it is a “last defensive resort”. In Laporte (2025 SCJ 35), the Supreme Court held that the absence of specific local regulation of third-party funding does not constitute a public policy bar to enforcement.

14.3 Enforcing non-Convention awards

Non-Convention awards may be enforced through the general provisions of Mauritian law, including under the IAA where the award qualifies as an international arbitral award. Article 1028 of the Code de Procédure Civile provides that foreign arbitral awards are governed by the New York Convention Act and the IAA. Awards from non-Convention states may face additional scrutiny, but the courts’ pro-enforcement approach is expected to facilitate recognition where appropriate.

15.1 Applicable to counsel

Counsel appearing in international arbitration proceedings in Mauritius are subject to the professional and ethical rules of their home jurisdiction. Mauritian advocates and attorneys are regulated by the Law Practitioners Act and are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Foreign lawyers permitted to appear under section 31 of the IAA remain bound by their home bar’s ethical obligations. The IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration may be adopted by agreement of the parties or by direction of the tribunal.

15.2 Applicable to arbitrators

Arbitrators are expected to comply with recognised international standards of conduct, including the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration. The UNCITRAL Model Law requirements of independence and impartiality, as incorporated into the IAA, constitute the baseline ethical framework. The PCA’s involvement in appointments and challenges provides additional institutional oversight. Arbitrators are required to disclose circumstances giving rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence throughout the proceedings.

16.1 Applicable regulatory requirements

Third-party funding is not expressly regulated by specific legislation in Mauritius. The Supreme Court addressed this issue directly in Laporte E.G.L. v. Laporte M.A.R. (2025 SCJ 35), holding that the absence of specific local regulation of third-party funding does not constitute a public policy bar to the enforcement of an award that includes third-party funding costs. The court applied the doctrine of separability to the costs-award provision and recognised funding costs as recoverable under “other costs”. This decision aligns Mauritian law with emerging international practice.

16.2 Overview of the third-party funding market

The third-party funding market in Mauritius is at a nascent stage but is expected to develop in light of the Laporte decision’s favourable judicial treatment. International funders active in African and Asian markets may increasingly consider Mauritius-seated arbitrations. The MIAC and the broader arbitration community are monitoring developments in this area. The judiciary’s pragmatic approach suggests that third-party funding will be facilitated rather than restricted as the market matures.

17.1 Types of specialist arbitration

Mauritius is particularly known for arbitrations in the energy sector, cross-border investment disputes (especially those involving investments into India, China and Africa), shareholder disputes concerning financial institutions, and disputes arising from the termination of shareholders’ agreements. The energy sector has generated the jurisdiction’s most high-profile cases, including Betamax v. State Trading Corporation and the CT Power dispute.

17.2 Key legal principles

The key legal principles applicable to specialist arbitrations in Mauritius include the pro-enforcement stance of the courts, the narrow construction of public policy, the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle (as applied in Mall of Mont Choisy v. Pick ’N Pay), the doctrine of severability (Brinks Finance), and the deference to party autonomy in the selection of governing law and arbitral seat. The Privy Council’s decision in Betamax confirmed that the public policy exception under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention is to be applied restrictively.

17.3 Types of claim and defences typically brought in that area

Claims commonly involve breach of contract (including power purchase agreements and shareholders’ agreements), breach of investment protection obligations, unlawful termination of concessions, and damages for loss of expected profits. Defences frequently raised include public policy challenges, jurisdictional objections, illegality of the underlying contract (as in Betamax), and public procurement non-compliance. The courts have consistently held that such defences are narrowly construed in the enforcement context.

17.4 Issues and strategic considerations to take note of

Practitioners should note:

• the importance of clearly specifying whether the IAA or the CPC regime applies;
• the potential for appeal to the Privy Council as a strategic consideration in seat selection;
• the availability of PCA involvement in appointments and challenges;
• the evolving position on third-party funding costs following Laporte; and
• the jurisdiction’s attractiveness for Africa- and Asia-related disputes given its extensive treaty network and neutral positioning.

The arbitration landscape in Mauritius is characterised by several notable trends. First, the judiciary’s pro-enforcement stance continues to strengthen, with the 2024 Super-Max decision and 2025 Laporte decision reinforcing the narrow application of the public policy exception. Second, the MIAC has experienced increased filings and greater uptake of its expedited and emergency procedures, reflecting institutional confidence. Third, the courts have begun grappling with modern issues including digital-hearing protocols, data privacy in remote hearings, and the role of third-party funders, all with a view to upholding party autonomy and arbitral finality.

The AfCFTA is expected to drive a significant increase in cross-border commercial disputes on the continent. According to World Bank projections, AfCFTA will increase Africa’s exports by 29% (USD 560 billion) by 2035. This growth, combined with Mauritius’s positioning as the only Delos-recognised safe seat in the African Union, suggests that the jurisdiction will attract an increasing share of Africa-seated international arbitrations. The energy sector transformation, with the government’s commitment to 60% renewable energy by 2030 and the phasing out of coal, is expected to generate further disputes and arbitration activity in the energy and construction sectors.

Investment treaty arbitration also remains a significant area. Mauritius’s network of 28 IPPAs and its ratification of the ICSID Convention provide a solid foundation for investor-state disputes. The jurisdiction’s combination of stable legislation, supportive case law on emergent issues, and growing institutional capacity places it firmly on an upward trajectory as a leading international arbitration centre.