Devendranath Hurnam v PV Veerabudren (Mauritius)

A judge of the Mauritian Intermediate Court acting within jurisdiction has complete common-law immunity from personal civil liability for words or gestures in open court. The immunity applies despite alleged malice or want of reasonable or probable cause. It protects judicial independence and the finality of decisions, while leaving misconduct subject to criminal or disciplinary processes.

Section 6 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1957 does not reduce that immunity. Read in its statutory and historical context, it regulates ministerial or administrative acts of magistrates, clerks and court officers. It does not govern judicial acts within jurisdiction. Clear and unambiguous language would be required to limit this important common-law safeguard.

Devendranath Hurnam v PV Veerabudren (Mauritius) concerned a damages claim against a magistrate of the Intermediate Court of Mauritius. The appellant alleged that, during an acrimonious exchange in open court, the respondent used derogatory language and gestures maliciously and without reasonable or probable cause. The claim was founded on article 1382 of the Code Civil Mauricien.

The Intermediate Court upheld a preliminary objection based on judicial immunity and dismissed the plaint. The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed the appellant’s appeal, holding that sections 4 and 6 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1957 did not permit the claim and that statutory procedures governing claims against judicial officers had not been followed.

No court had determined the truth of the allegations or the substantive merits of the damages claim. The Board assumed the pleaded facts and considered whether a judge of the Intermediate Court could be personally liable for words or gestures made in open court while hearing a matter within the judge’s jurisdiction.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Ericht, delivering the judgment of the Board, held that English common-law principles of judicial immunity formed part of Mauritian law. Although pre-existing French law continued as the private common law of Mauritius, British constitutional and administrative public law applied following cession. The rule of law and judicial independence therefore brought the English principle of judicial immunity into the Mauritian legal order.

2. A judge acting within jurisdiction is immune from an action for damages for judicial acts or words. The immunity applies notwithstanding alleged error, irrelevance, malice or want of reasonable or probable cause. Haggard v Pélicier Frères [1892] AC 61 established the application of that protection in the Mauritian context, while Sirros v Moore [1975] QB 118 and Scott v Stansfield (1868) LR 3 Exch 220 explained its scope. The immunity exists for the public benefit, protecting judicial independence and finality rather than conferring a personal licence to act improperly.

3. Section 6 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1957 did not qualify or abrogate that immunity. The section treated magistrates together with court clerks and officers, who possess no judicial immunity. Its language therefore regulated ministerial or administrative acts performed by those persons, rather than judicial acts within jurisdiction. This construction was consistent with the provision’s legislative history and with the distinction drawn in Everett v Griffiths [1921] 1 AC 631 between ministerial and purely judicial acts.

4. The 1957 Act contained no clear and unambiguous language limiting the common-law safeguard. The respondent was consequently immune from personal liability for the alleged words and gestures, which occurred in open court during a matter within her jurisdiction. The claim under article 1382 of the Code Civil Mauricien could not proceed.

5. The Board expressed no concluded view on immunity for acts outside jurisdiction, the survival of any historic English action against justices acting maliciously within jurisdiction, or the distinction between superior and inferior courts in that context. It was also unnecessary to decide whether immunity could additionally be implied from the Constitution of Mauritius or whether the procedural requirements of the 1957 Act and articles 505–13 of the Code de Procédure Civile operated cumulatively.

• Privy Council: In Devendranath Hurnam v PV Veerabudren (Mauritius) [2026] UKPC 29 , the Board dismissed the appeal. It held that received common-law judicial immunity barred the claim and was not limited by section 6 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1957.
• Supreme Court of Mauritius: On 5 April 2022, the court dismissed the appellant’s appeal. It treated sections 4 and 6 of the Public Officers’ Protection Act 1957 as procedural protections to be read with the requirements of the Code de Procédure Civile.
• Intermediate Court of Mauritius: On 2 June 2021, the court upheld the respondent’s preliminary objection, held that she was immune from civil proceedings arising from her judicial functions, declared the action null and void, and dismissed the plaint. On 2 October 2020, it had permitted immunity to be determined as a preliminary point of law.