Dispute Resolution in Mauritius 2026, Courts (amendment) Act 2025, 45‑day Judicial Review & Arbitration Challenges

The landscape of dispute resolution Mauritius has shifted materially in 2026, driven by two legislative developments that every General Counsel and dispute practitioner operating in the jurisdiction must now factor into forum-selection and timing strategy. The Courts (Amendment) Act 2025 compresses the window for certain judicial review applications to a strict 45‑day deadline, while the Revenue Tribunal Rules 2026 create a dedicated procedural framework for tax-related appeals. Taken together, these reforms reshape the tactical calculus for commercial litigation, arbitration challenges before the Designated Judge, and enforcement proceedings, making early legal triage more important than at any point in recent Mauritian practice. This guide translates both statutes into actionable steps, checklists and decision frameworks for practitioners and in-house teams.

Executive Summary and Decision Box

The 2026 reforms require immediate adjustments to three core dispute resolution Mauritius workflows: judicial review applications, arbitral-award challenges and tax appeals. Counsel who delay assessment, even by a fortnight, risk missing a jurisdictional deadline that cannot be extended by consent.

The practical question is not whether these changes affect your matter, but which route now offers the best combination of speed, scope of relief and enforceability. The decision turns on the nature of the underlying dispute, the identity of the decision-maker being challenged, and whether the dispute carries a revenue dimension.

• For claimants challenging a public-law decision: Calculate the 45‑day window from the date of notification, assemble your evidence bundle immediately, and decide whether parallel Designated Judge relief is available.
• For respondents defending against a challenge: Audit whether the applicant has complied with the new time limit, a jurisdictional objection on day 46 can be dispositive.
• For tax clients disputing an assessment: Evaluate whether the Revenue Tribunal Rules 2026 provide a faster, more specialist route than judicial review, and note the distinct stay-of-execution procedures now in play.

What Changed: Courts (Amendment) Act 2025 and the 45‑day Rule

The Courts (Amendment) Act 2025 introduces a mandatory 45‑day time limit for filing specified categories of judicial review application before the Supreme Court of Mauritius. Before this amendment, practitioners relied on a more flexible common-law reasonableness standard, which, in practice, allowed applications months after the impugned decision. That latitude has now been curtailed by statute.

Statutory Text and Effective Date

The amendment inserts a new provision into the Courts Act requiring that any application for judicial review of an administrative or quasi-judicial decision falling within its scope be filed within 45 days of the date on which the applicant was notified, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the decision. The provision was assented to in 2025, with the operative date confirmed by proclamation and reflected in the Prime Minister’s Office cabinet communications of 20 March 2026. The statutory text is published on the official laws portal administered by the Government of Mauritius.

The 45‑day judicial review clock applies to decisions made by public authorities, statutory bodies and tribunals exercising a public function. Industry observers expect this to capture a wide range of regulatory determinations, from licensing decisions to planning approvals, although the courts have yet to rule on every boundary case.

Exceptions and Transitional Rules

The Act preserves limited exceptions. Where the applicant can demonstrate that it was not reasonably possible to file within 45 days, for example, because the decision was concealed or the applicant was incapacitated, the court retains a residual discretion to extend time. Transitional provisions apply to decisions made before the operative date: these remain subject to the pre-existing reasonableness standard, provided the application is filed within a specified transitional period.

Practitioners should note that the burden of proof for any extension application falls squarely on the applicant. Early indications suggest the Supreme Court is likely to interpret the exception narrowly, consistent with the legislative intent to impose discipline on judicial review timelines.

The 45‑day Judicial Review Practical Checklist

Filing within the compressed 45‑day judicial review window requires a disciplined, front-loaded approach to case preparation. The following step-by-step checklist translates the statutory requirements into a practical workflow that dispute counsel can implement immediately upon receiving notice of an adverse decision.

Step-by-Step Filing Checklist

• Day 0, Trigger date identification. Confirm the exact date of notification. If the decision was communicated by letter, the trigger date is the date of receipt (not posting). If published in the Gazette, the publication date governs.
• Days 1–5, Preliminary assessment. Obtain and review the full text of the decision, any accompanying reasons, and the statutory framework under which the decision was made. Identify the ground(s) of review (illegality, procedural impropriety, irrationality or proportionality).
• Days 5–15, Evidence bundle assembly. Collate the core documents: the impugned decision, all correspondence, the applicant’s sworn affidavit, any expert reports, and statutory extracts. Prepare a chronology.
• Days 15–30, Drafting. Prepare the judicial review application, the supporting affidavit, the skeleton argument and the proposed order. Where urgent interim relief is needed, draft a separate application for ex parte or inter partes injunctive relief.
• Days 30–40, Internal review and sign-off. Circulate drafts for partner/GC approval. Brief counsel if external barristers are instructed. Finalise the evidence bundle index.
• Days 40–45, Filing and service. File at the Supreme Court registry. Serve the respondent and any interested parties in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court. Confirm filing receipt and retain proof of service.

Sample 45‑day Timeline Table

Where the 45th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday, practitioners should err on the side of caution and file on the preceding business day unless there is clear statutory authority permitting filing on the next working day. The computation of time under the Courts Act follows the general rules in the Interpretation and General Clauses Act, but given the novelty of this provision, the likely practical effect will be that the courts clarify computation in early decided cases.

Evidence Bundle Checklist

Arbitration in Mauritius: Designated Judge Challenges and the Interplay with Judicial Review

Mauritius has positioned itself as a leading seat for international arbitration and dispute resolution, underpinned by the International Arbitration Act (IAA) and supported by two principal arbitral institutions, the Mauritius International Arbitration Centre (MIAC) and the Mediation and Arbitration Center (MARC). The Designated Judge procedure under the IAA provides a specialist, fast-track route to challenge arbitral awards Mauritius. Understanding how this procedure interacts with the new 45‑day judicial review rule is now a critical element of any commercial litigation strategy in the jurisdiction.

Filing Steps and Timeline for Designated Judge Applications

Under the IAA, applications to set aside or challenge an arbitral award are heard by a Designated Judge of the Supreme Court, a judge specifically assigned to handle international arbitration matters. This single-judge procedure is designed to ensure consistency and expertise. The key steps are as follows:

• Identify the applicable grounds. The IAA permits challenges on grounds modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law, including incapacity of a party, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, denial of an opportunity to present one’s case, the award dealing with matters beyond the scope of the submission, and irregularity in the composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure.
• Calculate the filing deadline. The IAA prescribes a time limit for filing a set-aside application, running from the date on which the applicant received the award (or, if a correction or interpretation was requested, from the date on which the tribunal disposed of that request).
• Prepare the application. The application is made by way of motion supported by an affidavit. The affidavit must set out the factual basis for each ground relied upon and exhibit the award, the arbitration agreement and relevant procedural correspondence.
• File and serve. File the motion at the Supreme Court registry, addressed to the Designated Judge, and serve it on the opposing party and, where relevant, the arbitral institution (MIAC or MARC).
• Attend the hearing. Designated Judge hearings typically proceed within 30 to 90 days of filing, depending on the complexity of the challenge and the court’s calendar. Industry observers expect this range to narrow as the Designated Judge diary becomes more structured under recent practice directions.

Practitioners dealing with local court intervention in international arbitration will recognise the deliberate design: the IAA channels all arbitration-related court applications through a single judicial gatekeeper to prevent inconsistency and delay.

Interaction with the 45‑day Judicial Review Rule

The critical question for dispute counsel is whether the new 45‑day rule under the Courts (Amendment) Act 2025 applies to Designated Judge applications under the IAA. The better view, and the one supported by the structure of both statutes, is that IAA challenges are governed by the time limits in the IAA itself, not the general 45‑day judicial review provision. The IAA is a specialist statute, and the Designated Judge procedure is a statutory remedy distinct from judicial review.

However, where a party seeks to challenge an administrative decision connected to an arbitration, for example, a regulatory body’s refusal to recognise an arbitral institution or a governmental decision affecting the enforceability of an award, the 45‑day rule may apply. Counsel should assess at the outset whether the challenge is properly characterised as a Designated Judge application (IAA time limits) or a judicial review (45‑day rule), because filing under the wrong procedure, or missing the earlier deadline, could be fatal.

Sample Grounds and Chronology for a Designated Judge Challenge

For detailed guidance on hearing preparation, see preparation for and conduct of arbitration hearings.

Revenue Tribunal Rules 2026: Tax Dispute Strategy

The Revenue Tribunal Rules 2026 establish a structured procedural framework for the resolution of tax disputes in Mauritius, replacing the more ad hoc arrangements that previously governed appeals against assessments by the Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA). For dispute counsel advising corporate or high-net-worth clients, the new Rules demand a fundamental reassessment of when to pursue a tribunal route versus judicial review.

Key Features of the Revenue Tribunal Rules 2026

• Defined timetable for appeals. The Rules prescribe specific deadlines for filing a notice of appeal against an MRA assessment, filing the appellant’s statement of case, and the MRA’s response. This replaces the previous reliance on general practice directions.
• Stay of execution. The Rules contain provisions governing applications for a stay of execution of the assessed tax liability pending determination of the appeal. Taxpayers must apply for a stay promptly and demonstrate grounds, typically, irreparable harm or a strong prima facie case.
• Evidence and disclosure. The Rules introduce structured disclosure obligations, requiring both the appellant and the MRA to exchange relevant documents within prescribed timescales. This represents a significant shift towards front-loaded preparation.
• Right of appeal. Decisions of the Revenue Tribunal are subject to appeal to the Supreme Court on points of law, and ultimately to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The interaction with the 45‑day judicial review rule is important: where a party seeks to challenge a Revenue Tribunal decision by way of judicial review (rather than the statutory appeal route), the 45‑day time limit under the Courts (Amendment) Act 2025 may apply.

Forum-Selection Flowchart: Tax Assessment to Final Appeal

The likely practical effect of the Revenue Tribunal Rules 2026 is that tax disputes in Mauritius will be resolved more predictably. Taxpayers should note that the structured timetable cuts both ways: while it prevents the MRA from sitting indefinitely on an objection, it also imposes firm deadlines on appellants to file evidence and submissions.

Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and Privy Council Risk

Mauritius is a signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, making the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards relatively straightforward in principle. In practice, the process requires attention to procedural detail and awareness of the narrow grounds on which enforcement can be resisted.

Enforcement Procedure and Grounds for Refusal

To enforce a foreign arbitral award, the successful party files an application before the Supreme Court, supported by the original award (or a certified copy), the arbitration agreement, and a sworn affidavit. The grounds for resisting enforcement mirror those of the New York Convention: incapacity of a party, invalid arbitration agreement, lack of notice, award exceeding scope, and public policy. The Mauritian courts have historically construed the public-policy ground narrowly, consistent with their pro-arbitration stance.

A distinctive feature of the Mauritian system is the residual right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. While this right is valuable as a safeguard, it also introduces a layer of delay and cost that enforcement creditors must factor into their commercial litigation strategy. An appeal to the Privy Council can add 12 to 24 months and significant legal expense. Respondents sometimes use the threat of a Privy Council appeal as a negotiating lever to secure a discounted settlement.

Practical Enforcement Checklist

• Preserve assets early. Consider applying for a freezing order or attachment before filing the enforcement application if there is a risk of asset dissipation.
• Authenticate documents. Ensure the award and arbitration agreement are properly certified and, if necessary, apostilled for use in Mauritius.
• Assess Privy Council risk. Before commencing enforcement, evaluate whether the respondent has viable grounds to resist and is likely to appeal to the Privy Council, this affects the timeline and cost-benefit analysis.
• Consider parallel enforcement. Where the respondent holds assets in multiple jurisdictions, consider enforcing in Mauritius simultaneously with other New York Convention jurisdictions to maximise recovery prospects.

For a broader discussion of how courts interact with the arbitral process, see dispute resolution mechanisms in commercial contracts.

Comparative Timeline and Decision Table

Choosing the right dispute resolution Mauritius pathway requires a side-by-side comparison of time, cost and tactical advantage. The following table summarises the three principal routes available after the 2026 reforms.

Institutional Comparison: MIAC vs MARC

Litigation Playbook: Sample Pleadings, Evidence Bundle Checklist and Templates

Effective dispute resolution Mauritius practice under the 2026 framework demands standardised, front-loaded documentation. The following outlines serve as starting templates that practitioners can adapt to their specific matters.

Affidavit Checklist (Judicial Review or Designated Judge Application)

• Deponent identification. Full name, address, capacity (e.g., director, authorised representative) and basis of knowledge.
• Factual narrative. Chronological account of events leading to the impugned decision or award, referenced to exhibited documents.
• Grounds of challenge. Each ground stated as a separate numbered paragraph, cross-referenced to legal authority.
• Prejudice and urgency. Explain why relief is needed and, if interim relief is sought, why the balance of convenience favours the applicant.
• Exhibits. Paginated bundle with an index; each exhibit marked with a unique identifier (e.g., “MN-1”, “MN-2”).
• Verification. Statement of truth or oath, sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths in Mauritius.

Skeleton Argument Outline

• Introduction (1 page). Nature of the application, identity of parties, relief sought.
• Factual summary (2–3 pages). Key facts by reference to the affidavit and exhibits.
• Legal framework (2–3 pages). Relevant statutory provisions (Courts Act, IAA, Revenue Tribunal Rules as applicable), leading authorities.
• Submissions on each ground (variable). Separate section per ground; apply law to facts; distinguish adverse authority.
• Relief sought (half page). Specify the precise orders requested, including any interim measures.

Proposed Order Template Pointers

• Preamble. Recite the application reference, parties and hearing date.
• Operative paragraphs. State each order sought in clear, self-executing terms (e.g., “The decision of [body] dated [date] is hereby quashed”).
• Consequential directions. Include any remittal to the decision-maker, costs order, or directions for further submissions.
• Liberty to apply. Include a liberty-to-apply clause to allow either party to return to court on notice.

Next Steps for Dispute Resolution Mauritius in 2026

The combined effect of the Courts (Amendment) Act 2025 and the Revenue Tribunal Rules 2026 is to impose greater procedural discipline on all parties engaged in dispute resolution Mauritius. The margin for delay has narrowed, and the cost of missing a deadline, whether the 45‑day judicial review window, the IAA set-aside period, or the Revenue Tribunal filing date, can be jurisdictional and irrecoverable.

Practitioners and General Counsel should take three immediate actions:

• Audit existing disputes. Review all pending or anticipated matters for exposure to the new time limits. For decisions already notified, calculate the 45‑day deadline and diarise it prominently.
• Update internal protocols. Amend litigation-hold and dispute-response protocols to reflect the compressed timelines. Ensure that in-house teams escalate adverse decisions within 48 hours of receipt.
• Engage specialist counsel early. The front-loaded nature of all three routes, judicial review, Designated Judge applications and Revenue Tribunal appeals, means that delaying instruction by even a week can compromise the quality of the evidence bundle and the strength of the application.

For access to experienced practitioners with regular Supreme Court and Privy Council appearances in Mauritius, consult the Mauritius lawyer directory maintained by Global Law Experts.

Sources

1. Mauritius International Arbitration Centre (MIAC)
2. Mediation and Arbitration Center (MARC)
3. Chambers & Partners, Dispute Resolution: Mauritius
4. EDB Mauritius, Mauritius as an International Centre for Arbitration
5. BLC Robert & Associates, Dispute Resolution
6. Eversheds Sutherland, Global Guide to Alternative Dispute Resolution: Mauritius