Adjudication vs Arbitration in Mauritius: Which Is Best for Construction Disputes?

When a construction dispute erupts on a Mauritian project, a withheld progress payment, a contested variation, a termination claim, the employer or contractor must make a tactical choice: pursue a fast interim decision through adjudication (typically via a Dispute Adjudication Board, or DAB), or seek a final, binding resolution through arbitration. The question of adjudication vs arbitration in Mauritius has become more consequential since the Construction Industry Authority Act 2023 (CIA Act) took operational effect in 2024–2025, reshaping the regulatory environment for contractor registration and project-level dispute governance. This guide gives you a direct, dimension-by-dimension framework to choose the right route for your claim, and tells you when to instruct a construction lawyer before the decision is locked in.

Adjudication and DABs in Mauritius: The Fast-Track Option

What adjudication is and when it applies

Adjudication in construction dispute resolution in Mauritius most commonly takes the form of a referral to a Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) established under the construction contract. On FIDIC-based projects, which dominate large-scale infrastructure and commercial building in Mauritius, the DAB is a contractual mechanism that sits between the parties and delivers a decision intended to keep the works and cashflow moving while the project continues. Outside FIDIC, adjudication may be available where the contract includes a bespoke adjudication clause or where the parties agree to refer a discrete issue to an independent adjudicator.

The DAB procedure typically follows a compressed timeline. Under standard FIDIC conditions, the referring party issues a notice of dispute and refers the matter to the DAB, which must render its decision within 84 days of referral. Many bespoke contracts and sub-contract adjudication clauses use shorter windows of 28 to 56 days. The process is document-driven, often with a single site visit or short hearing, and produces a decision that is temporarily binding on both parties.

Who benefits most from adjudication

Adjudication suits parties who need an immediate resolution to unblock payment or clarify an obligation without halting works. The typical profile includes:

• Contractors and subcontractors pursuing interim payment certificates, measured-work valuations, or extension-of-time entitlements.
• Employers seeking a rapid determination on whether a variation instruction was valid or whether defects must be rectified before the next payment milestone.
• Project managers on live sites where delay in resolving a dispute threatens the critical path.

Limitations of adjudication

An adjudicator’s decision is temporarily binding. Either party may refer the same dispute to arbitration (or litigation, depending on the contract) for a final determination. The adjudicator’s jurisdiction is limited to what the contract grants; an adjudicator cannot award damages beyond the scope of the referral, and enforcement depends primarily on the contractual obligation to comply. Where a losing party refuses to honour the decision, the prevailing party may need to pursue enforcement through the courts or escalate to arbitration, adding time and cost.

Arbitration in Mauritius: The Final-Resolution Route

How arbitration works in Mauritius

Arbitration is a private adjudicative process in which one or more arbitrators hear evidence, apply the law, and render a final, binding award. In Mauritius, domestic and international arbitrations are commonly administered by the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MCCI) through the MARC (Mediation and Arbitration Centre). Parties may also choose international institutions such as the ICC or LCIA, or conduct ad hoc arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules.

Mauritius is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, and the International Arbitration Act 2008 governs international arbitrations seated in Mauritius. For domestic arbitrations, enforcement proceeds through exequatur, a court procedure by which the award is recognised and rendered executable. Recent enforcement practice in Mauritius has been described as pro-arbitration, with courts generally declining to re-examine the merits of an award at the enforcement stage.

Typical timeline

Arbitration is inherently longer than adjudication. From filing a request for arbitration through tribunal constitution, exchange of submissions, disclosure, hearing, and award, a straightforward construction arbitration in Mauritius commonly takes 12 to 18 months. Complex multi-party or high-value disputes, particularly those involving quantum experts, multiple witnesses, and cross-border elements, can extend to 24 months or beyond.

Advantages of the arbitration route

• Finality. The award is final and binding, subject only to narrow grounds of challenge (procedural irregularity, lack of jurisdiction, public policy).
• Enforceability. Foreign awards benefit from the New York Convention regime; domestic awards are enforceable via exequatur.
• Confidentiality. Arbitration proceedings are private, unlike court litigation.
• Full remedies. The tribunal can award damages, interest, costs, and declaratory relief across the full scope of the dispute.

Downsides of arbitration

• Cost. Tribunal fees, legal representation, expert witnesses, and hearing logistics make arbitration substantially more expensive than adjudication.
• Time. Even an expedited arbitration rarely delivers a decision in under six months.
• Cashflow impact. Unless the tribunal grants interim measures, the claimant receives no payment until the final award, a serious concern on active projects.

Adjudication vs Arbitration in Mauritius: Side-by-Side Comparison

The table below presents the core dimensions that drive the choice between adjudication and arbitration for construction disputes in Mauritius. Use it as a rapid reference before reading the detailed dimension analysis that follows.

The table confirms the fundamental trade-off: adjudication delivers speed and cashflow protection at the cost of finality, while arbitration delivers a binding, enforceable award at the cost of time and money. The sections below unpack each dimension in detail.

Dimension-by-Dimension Analysis: Adjudication vs Arbitration

Timing: time to decision

Time to decision is often the single most important factor for a contractor facing a withheld payment on an active site. The contrast is stark:

On FIDIC projects in Mauritius, the DAB vs arbitration timing gap makes adjudication the only realistic route if the dispute is holding up current works. Arbitration is the appropriate route when the project timeline can absorb the delay or the dispute arises post-completion.

Cost: fees, counsel, and experts

The cost comparison between adjudication and arbitration reflects the difference in procedural complexity. All figures below are planning-level estimates; parties should confirm current fee schedules with the administering institution or their legal counsel.

The cost differential is significant enough that for low-to-medium-value disputes with clear factual issues, adjudication is almost always the more efficient route. Arbitration costs are justified only where finality is needed or the quantum warrants the investment.

Liability, remedies, and counterclaims

The scope of relief available under each route differs materially:

• Adjudication: The adjudicator’s jurisdiction is defined by the referral and the contract. DAB decisions typically address the specific claim referred, for example, whether a payment certificate should be revised or whether an extension of time is due. The adjudicator may determine liability and quantum on the referred issue, but cannot conduct a comprehensive final account or resolve counterclaims unless the contract or the parties’ agreement extends that scope.
• Arbitration: The tribunal has full jurisdiction to determine liability, quantum, interest, costs, and counterclaims across the entire dispute. Set-offs and cross-claims can be heard and determined in a single proceeding. For parties with multiple interrelated claims, or where the respondent intends to raise substantial counterclaims, arbitration is the only mechanism that provides a complete accounting.

Enforceability in Mauritius

Enforceability is where the practical rubber meets the legal road, and it is the dimension most affected by recent developments in Mauritius.

• Adjudicator / DAB decisions: These are binding as a contractual obligation. If the losing party refuses to comply, the prevailing party’s primary remedy is to seek enforcement through the courts on a contractual basis or to escalate to arbitration to convert the decision into an enforceable award. The CIA Act 2023 has strengthened the regulatory framework around construction project governance, and early indications suggest that adjudicator decisions carry greater administrative weight in dealings with the Construction Industry Authority. However, no standalone statutory adjudication enforcement regime, comparable to the UK’s Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act, currently exists in Mauritius.
• Arbitral awards: Domestic arbitral awards are enforceable in Mauritius through the exequatur procedure before the Supreme Court. Foreign arbitral awards benefit from the New York Convention, to which Mauritius is a party, permitting recognition and enforcement with limited grounds for refusal. Recent enforcement practice has been described as supportive of the arbitral process, with Mauritian courts generally refraining from reopening the merits of awards at the enforcement stage.

Preservation of rights and practical risks

A critical concern when pursuing adjudication is whether doing so preserves the right to arbitrate later. On a standard FIDIC contract, the answer is generally yes, the DAB decision is expressly an interim step, and either party may issue a notice of dissatisfaction and proceed to arbitration. However, contract drafting errors or non-standard clauses can create traps:

• Missing notice of dissatisfaction: Failure to issue a timely notice of dissatisfaction with the DAB decision may render the decision final and binding, foreclosing arbitration on that issue.
• Waiver by conduct: Participating in a separate settlement process without reserving rights can risk an estoppel argument.
• Non-FIDIC contracts: Bespoke adjudication clauses in Mauritian contracts do not always include an express right to escalate to arbitration. The clause must be checked before referral.

Parties should review their dispute resolution clause with a construction lawyer before initiating adjudication to confirm that the right to arbitrate is preserved.

Regulatory and administrative burden under the CIA Act

The Construction Industry Authority Act 2023 established the Construction Industry Authority (CIA) as the apex regulatory body for the construction sector in Mauritius, replacing the former Construction Industry Development Board. The CIA Act’s operational rollout in 2024–2025 brought changes to contractor registration, project oversight, and administrative governance that affect both adjudication and arbitration indirectly:

• Registration and compliance: Contractors must be registered with the CIA. An unregistered contractor’s ability to pursue or defend claims, including through adjudication or arbitration, may be complicated by regulatory non-compliance.
• DAB recognition: The CIA’s strengthened oversight of project administration increases the practical weight of DAB decisions in regulatory dealings, even though the Act does not create a statutory adjudication enforcement mechanism.
• Administrative burden: Both parties should ensure their regulatory standing is current before initiating formal dispute resolution, as compliance issues can be raised as preliminary objections.

What Changes in 2026 for Construction Dispute Resolution in Mauritius

Several developments between 2024 and 2026 have shifted the adjudication vs arbitration calculus in Mauritius:

• CIA Act 2023 fully operational: The Construction Industry Authority is now active, and its regulatory framework has matured. Industry observers expect the CIA’s role in project governance to lend greater practical enforceability to DAB decisions within the administrative sphere.
• Pro-arbitration enforcement posture confirmed: Court practice in 2024–2025 has reinforced Mauritius’ position as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction. The exequatur procedure for domestic awards and New York Convention enforcement for foreign awards continue to function efficiently.
• MARC institutional development: The MCCI’s Mediation and Arbitration Centre continues to develop its administered arbitration offering, providing a credible local alternative to offshore institutional arbitration for Mauritius-seated disputes.
• Net recommendation shift: Adjudication has become a stronger short-term tool for cashflow and project continuity than it was before the CIA Act. However, parties must be more careful than ever to draft referral notices correctly and preserve their arbitration rights, because the improved standing of adjudicator decisions raises the stakes of procedural errors.

Decision Framework: When to Choose Adjudication vs Arbitration in Mauritius

The choice between adjudication and arbitration depends on a handful of concrete factors. Use the framework below to map your situation to the right route.

Choose adjudication when:

• You need a fast, interim determination to keep the project moving or secure interim payment.
• The contract (or FIDIC DAB clause) expressly provides adjudication or DAB procedures.
• The dispute is primarily factual, for example, measured-work valuations, interim payment entitlements, or extension-of-time claims.
• Budget constraints make a full arbitration disproportionate to the claim value.
• Works are ongoing and delay in resolution would compound losses.

Choose arbitration when:

• You need finality on complex legal or technical issues, or where damages are substantial.
• The amount at stake justifies the cost, or you plan to enforce the award cross-border under the New York Convention.
• The respondent is likely to raise substantial counterclaims or set-offs that require comprehensive determination.
• The contract has a robust arbitration clause and you want a confidential, full evidentiary process.
• The dispute arises post-completion and there is no ongoing project to protect.

When to Hire a Construction Lawyer for Adjudication vs Arbitration in Mauritius

Both adjudication and arbitration involve procedural steps where errors are difficult or impossible to reverse. Instruct a construction lawyer before any of the following triggers arise:

• Before issuing a notice of dispute or referral to the DAB. Contractual time bars in FIDIC and bespoke contracts can extinguish a claim if the notice is late or defective. A lawyer ensures compliance with the clause and preserves all downstream rights.
• Before drafting the referral to an adjudicator or DAB. The scope of the referral defines the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. A poorly drafted referral can result in a decision that is unenforceable or that fails to address the core issue.
• When the other party refuses to comply with a DAB decision. Enforcement may require court proceedings or escalation to arbitration. Legal advice at this stage determines the most efficient enforcement pathway.
• Before commencing arbitration or responding to a request for arbitration. Tribunal constitution, jurisdictional objections, and interim-measures applications all require early legal strategy.
• For any FIDIC claim exceeding MUR 5 million (or its equivalent) or involving cross-border elements. At this quantum, the cost of legal representation is proportionate and the risk of an unrepresented procedural error is high.

A qualified construction lawyer will typically, within the first 7 to 30 days of instruction, audit the dispute resolution clause, confirm applicable time bars, assess whether adjudication or arbitration is the correct first step, and prepare the notice or referral documentation to protect the client’s position.

Sources

1. Construction Industry Authority Act 2023, Laws of Mauritius
2. MCCI / MARC Arbitration Guide (PDF)
3. DLA Piper Africa, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Foreign Judgments and Settlements (Mauritius, 2024)
4. Delos Dispute Resolution, Mauritius Country Guide
5. Global Law Experts, Dispute Adjudication Board Procedure Mauritius
6. Africa Construction Law, Adjudication as a Form of Dispute Resolution (Kenya and Mauritius)
7. Aceris Law, International Arbitration in Mauritius
8. MARC, Frequently Asked Questions