Alphamix Ltd v The District Council of Rivière du Rempart (Mauritius)

Under Mauritian law, an arbitrator’s mandate may be extended by the parties’ express or implied consent. No formalities are required. A tacit extension may be inferred from an unequivocal common intention assessed in context and against the surrounding circumstances.

Where the parties consent to receiving an unedited award, understanding that the final signed version will follow later, their conduct may extend the mandate beyond the original deadline. Counsel have authority to bind their clients in matters concerning the conduct of proceedings.

The appeal arose from a construction arbitration in Mauritius. The arbitrator’s mandate had been extended to 31 December 2018. On that date he read the operative part of his decision and sent the parties an unedited, unsigned version. A formatted, edited and signed version, dated 31 December, was sent on 3 January 2019.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius annulled the award, holding that the unsigned version was a nullity and that the signed award was delivered after expiry of the mandate. The issues before the Board were whether the parties had tacitly extended the mandate and whether the date of signature was material.

1. Appeal allowed. The signed award delivered on 3 January 2019 was declared valid and enforceable under article 1027-9 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. An arbitrator’s mandate may be extended by express or implied consent. No formalities are required. The parties’ unequivocal common intention is assessed in context and against the surrounding circumstances, from which the court may draw appropriate inferences: Gem Management Ltd v Firefox Ltd and 21 others [2022] UKPC 17, para 16, approving Bahemia MH & Partner Ltd v Production Menuiseries Industrielles Ltd [2016] SCJ 66, p 6.
3. The parties knew that the mandate expired at midnight, that the arbitrator was ill, that the next working day was 3 January, and that the draft required formatting and editing. Their counsel raised no objection to receiving an unedited award immediately on the understanding that the final signed version would be provided later. The surrounding circumstances showed an agreement to extend time.
4. Counsel could bind their clients on the conduct of the proceedings: Matthews v Munster (1887) 20 QBD 141, 144–145.
5. It was immaterial whether the award was signed on 3 January or had already been signed on 31 December. The appeal was allowed because the award was within the tacitly extended mandate.

• Privy Council: Appeal allowed; the signed award delivered on 3 January 2019 was declared valid and enforceable.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: On 14 January 2022, annulled the award because it was delivered after expiry of the arbitrator’s mandate, holding the unsigned version a nullity under articles 1026-4 and 1026-5 of the Mauritian Civil Procedure Code.