| MAURITIUS — Court order — Judicial auction — Power of court to re-open bidding
Bundhoo v State of Mauritius [2007] UKPC 25
PC (Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Sir Peter Gibson): 25 April 2007
{Since a court could, before the final drawing up of an order, reconsider the matter and amend the order if thought fit to do so, a court in Mauritius had been entitled to cancel its order as to the result of a judicial auction of a debtor's property when the highest bidder failed to produce the deposit on time and reopen the bidding.
The Privy Council so held in dismissing an appeal by Balcarrun Bundhoo from the order of the Supreme Court of Mauritius (Senior Puisne Judge Yeung Sik Yuen and Judge Matadeen) affirming the decision of a master to reopen bidding at a judicial auction. In accordance with the procedure in the Sale of Immovable Property Act 1982, a judgment debtor's property had been seized to be sold under judicial authority to pay off the debt. At the auction, the property was sold to the highest bidder, the debtor's wife, and the master made an order “for deposit and adjudication” in her favour. There was then an adjournment to allow her to obtain the required deposit from the bank. When she failed to return by the stated time the master set aside the adjudication and re-auctioned the property.
LORD SCOTT OF FOSCOTE, delivering the opinion of the Board, said that the master had been entitled to take the course that he did. The adjudication had not been an unconditional stand-alone order. Their Lordships construed the order as being for the successful bidder to pay the deposit and for her to be adjudicated the purchaser upon the deposit being paid. When she was allowed time to raise the money, the adjudication was held in suspense for the period allowed. In the event, the basis on which the adjudication had been ordered failed and the adjudication failed with it. Further, there was long-standing jurisprudence in the United Kingdom establishing that a court might, before entry of a judgment or the drawing of an order had been completed, reconsider the matter and amend its order if thought fit to do so. There was no reason why the same rule should not apply in Mauritius.
|
Appearances: Dev Hurnam and Daniel Dangeot, both of the Mauritian Bar, (Saunders) for the appellant; Geoffrey Cox QC, Laura Collignon and Satyajit Boolell, Parliamentary Counsel of Mauritius, (Royds) for the State of Mauritius.
|
