EGALLYS Limited (Appellant) v The Information and Communication Technologies Authority (Respondent) (Mauritius)

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0070

Jurisdiction

Mauritius

Parties

Appellant(s)

EGALLYS Limited

Respondent(s)

The Information and Communication Technologies Authority

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err in dismissing the application on the basis that the sole director of the company failed to provide evidence that he was authorised to represent the company in proceedings?

Facts

On 4 August 2020, the respondent served a Statutory Demand on the appellant under section 180 of the Insolvency Act. This is a prescribed form served on a debtor requiring payment of debt due to a creditor. In this case, the sum claimed by the respondent was 14,066,666.68 rupees, together with additional miscellaneous costs relating to the demand. On 28 August 2020, the appellant filed an application under section 181 of the Insolvency Act to set aside the Statutory Demand. This appellant argued that there was a dispute concerning the debts claimed; that they had a counterclaim; and that the respondent had failed to comply with its legal and regulatory obligations. The appellant company was represented by Mr Esteves, who was the company’s sole director. He provided three sworn affidavits to the court in respect of the application. No evidence was provided with these affidavits, however, to show that he had the legal authority to represent the appellant company. The respondent raised this as a preliminary issue before the Bankruptcy Division of the Supreme Court, arguing that Mr Esteves had not shown that he had the authority to represent the Company under the Companies Act. The appellant argued that as Mr Esteves was the sole director of the company, and this was not disputed by respondent, the additional evidence of his authority was not required. The Bankruptcy Division dismissed the application to set aside the Statutory Demand on this preliminary matter, finding that there was no evidence that Mr Esteves was authorised to swear affidavits on behalf of the appellant. The merits of the application were therefore not considered. The Court of Civil Appeal dismissed the appeal against this decision. The appellant now appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Date of issue

23 July 2025

Case origin

Appeal As of Right

Back to top