Mauritius - Market Insights

The jurisdiction today

Mauritius is looking to the future. From a policy and regulatory perspective, the jurisdiction seeks to consolidate its position as an attractive and reliable destination for foreign investors. Among an array of growth vectors, its vision to continue modernising financial services and the digital economy bolsters the country’s impetus to drive economic growth. Amid a climate shaped by the geopolitical complexities of the new world order — driven in part by polarising military deployments — recent air strikes in the Gulf region (i.e. the UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait) serve as a reminder of the risks tied to the economic fallibility of Mauritius if it does not innovate and diversify. In addition, the struggle for Mauritius to enforce its claim for sovereignty over the Chagos Islands (in spite of the delivery of the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion at a majority vote of 13 to 1) is poised to serve as an apt reminder to small-island developing states of their relatively weak position in the global order. Nonetheless, three notable events which set the context of the current climate in Mauritius are depicted here:

• The adoption of the Digital Transformation Blueprint 2025–2029 by the Ministry of Information Technology in Mauritius, which showcases an ambitious plan to innovate and digitise the country’s e-commerce platforms, impose more severe punishment for cybercrime, digitise public service and enhance the scope of the GDPR regime under the Data Protection Act.
• The commencement of sectoral discussions in Mauritius at the initiative of the Ministry of Financial Services in anticipation of global shifts to draw up “Vision 2050”. Much like a think-tank initiative, Vision 2050 is intended to open up the national debate in anticipation of preparing the country’s future generations to take the helm. Vision 2050 is intended to be a long-term national road map to build a more prosperous, sustainable and inclusive Mauritius.
• The high-level discussion between the Prime Minister of Mauritius, Mr. N. Ramgoolam, and the Prime Minister of India, Mr. N. Modi, in New Delhi, India in February 2026, on the implications to Mauritius arising from the landmark decision from the Supreme Court of India on the unavailability of tax treaty benefits in the Tiger Global Even if tax treaty benefits did not apply to the entities of the Tiger Global Group based in Mauritius, the prevailing discussion on the stricter approach in interpreting advantages under the India–Mauritius Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) by the courts in India indicates a paradigm shift from a judicial activism standpoint in favour of greater substance in Mauritius. In simple terms, the Indian courts, in interpreting DTAA advantage, will henceforth more likely look out for (in terms of evidence):
  • proof of greater effective control and residency of management in Mauritius;
  • proof of an adapted commercial rationale to the structure, hence deterring structures from having the effect of being conduits; and
  • accounting books which show meaningful economic function and performance in Mauritius.

While the Prime Minister of India has given guarantees that nothing will be done to affect the economic position of Mauritius in any way, it is now apparent that a complacent approach by financial services operators in Mauritius will no longer serve as a sustainable model capable of enhancing the jurisdiction’s attractiveness in the future.

Conservative trend in practice of the law

The hybrid legal system of Mauritius blends English and French law in both aspects of statute and common law, while the highest appellate court of the jurisdiction is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council based in London. There is therefore a predisposition of certainty in efforts to enforce foreign judgments. This is a reassuring indicator of the preservation of the international rule of law in Mauritius.

Where a foreign judgment needs to be enforced (supposing the common law test that there exists a judgment capable of being enforced in first place is met), an appropriate application seeking an order for an exequatur must be brought ex parte.

This applies regardless of the special category of cases that will be captured by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1923 with respect to money judgments secured in the United Kingdom only, and due to be enforced in Mauritius. The provisions of Article 546 of the Mauritius Code de Procedure Civile remains the underlying basis for bringing such applications and opens the scope of reciprocal recognition to all other judgments from any other foreign jurisdictions.

Whilst the common law test regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments must be met, the case of D’Arifat & Ors v. Lesueur [1949] M.R. 191 (recently repeated in the case of Ex parte Hemans-Arday S. & Anor [2025] SCJ 508) has stood the test of time, and remains the applicable benchmark of the competence of the Supreme Court of Mauritius in successfully granting the exequatur of foreign judgments in Mauritius for being “prima facie regular and capable of execution”.  

The conditions to be met in seeking an exequatur must be supported by appropriate affidavit evidence, implying appropriate elements of foreign law are satisfied. The conditions to be met are that:

• the judgment must still be valid (une existence legale) and capable of execution in the country where it was delivered;
• it must not be contrary to any principle affecting public order such that any incompetence should merely be a relative one;
• the defendant must have been regularly summoned to attend the proceedings; and
• the court which delivered the judgment must have had jurisdiction to deal with the matter submitted to it.

Only in the face of the above being satisfied will the Supreme Court of Mauritius proceed to enforce the execution in Mauritius of a foreign judgment. The Supreme Court holds no powers to revisit the merits of the foreign decision that are sought to be enforced; and will not do so. An element of attractiveness in the ease of access to our jurisdiction in such cases is there is no limitation period or statutory time limit for bringing forth an application for recognition of a foreign judgment. Both judgments in the cases of Dallah Albaraka (Ireland) Ltd v. Pentasoft Technologies Limited [2012] M.R. 75 and [2015] SCJ 168 remain, thus far, the leading authority on the question of recognition of reciprocity of foreign judgments derived from applications made under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1923. It is settled that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgment of a foreign court unless the judgment sought to be enforced was no longer valid and had been set aside or reversed on appeal.

It is worth noting, as a matter of practice, that the trend remains to recognise foreign judgments where these stem from adherence to the due process of the law. The Supreme Court will shun and will be unlikely to entertain tactical interference that could be raised by objecting parties.

Lastly, the Privy Council judgment in the case of Betamax v. State Trading Corporation [2021] UKPC 14 cannot be cast aside in terms of the enforcement of arbitral awards. It continues to preserve and uphold the reputation of our jurisdiction as being no-nonsense in regard to the enforcement of arbitral awards. Even if an argument is made that the enforcement of an arbitral award would be devoid of a supposed legality requirement attached to a jurisdiction, the Privy Council has spelt out clearly that no domestic court should seek to interfere with the rights of parties having opted for arbitration. Doing so would constitute a violation of the elementary principles of arbitration.