In the case of Syndicat des Co-Propriétaires de la Tourelle Ocean View Residence Mauritius v The District Council of Black River & Anor (2025 SCJ 213), the Supreme Court of Mauritius had to consider an application for leave to apply for the judicial review of a decision of the Respondent District Council. However, the Court did not adjudicate on the leave application on the basis that the applicant lacked the requisite specific mandate ("mandat spéciale") to initiate proceedings on behalf of [ ]. Articles 664-50 and 664-52 of the Mauritian Civil Code ("Code Civil Mauricien") identify the administrator ("syndic") as the legal representative of the co-ownership association ("syndicat"), entrusted with the power to represent it in court. However, Article 664-11 makes it clear that, unless the suit is merely for the recovery of a debt, the administrator ("syndic") must obtain specific prior authorisation from a general meeting of the said co-ownership association ("assemblée générale") before initiating proceedings.
The Court noted that, although a co-ownership association ("syndicat") has legal personality and is capable of suing or being sued in its own name, it may only do so through the administrator ("syndic"), and then only with proper authorisation granted to it from a general meeting of the said co-ownership association ("assemblée générale").
In this case, the motion passed by the co-ownership association at its general meeting ("assemblée générale") was in general terms only, allowing for "legal action" against identified parties in relation to potential construction on an adjacent lot. No express mandate was given to the administrator ("syndic"), Prosyndic Services Ltd, to swear affidavits and initiate the present proceedings on behalf of the co-ownership association ("syndicat"). Moreover, the Court found that since the resolution dated 10 March 2023 was passed at a time when the cause of action had not yet arisen, the co-ownership association ("syndicat") could not have duly authorised the administrator ("syndic") to act. Consequently, the Court found that the procedural requirements were not met, leading to a refusal of leave to proceed with the judicial review application.
This decision therefore emphasises the strict requirements relating to representation under the Mauritian Civil Code ("Code Civil Mauricien") for a co-ownership association ("syndicat") to initiate court actions in court through its administrator ("syndic"). It further underscores the importance of verifying that the clear and specific mandate given to an administrator, as opposed to a general mandate, is properly recorded in the minutes of a general meeting of the said co-ownership association ("assemblée générale"), and specifying the cause of action, before initiating any court proceedings. Practitioners and administrators ("syndics") alike would therefore be well advised to ensure that all procedural preconditions are scrupulously satisfied when seeking to bring claims on behalf of a co-ownership association ("syndicat").
*Reviewed by Shrivan Dabee, an Executive in Mauritius
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
