Country
Mauritius
Sources
InforMEA
Tagging
Evidence, Precaution, Licences, Damages, Jurisdiction, Permits
Abstract

The respondent was the plaintiff in the court below and had lodged an action against the appellant claiming that the appellant was carrying out his activities as cabinetmaker without licence in a residential area. The respondent meant that the appellant ran electrical machines causing nuisances in the form of noise pollution and wood dust.

In the intermediate court, the respondent was awarded damages and an order was made preventing the appellant from continuing with his activities. The appellant appealed on several grounds. For example the appellant meant that he had taken all the necessary precautions to avoid any nuisances. A witness testified that there was no problem of either dust or environmental pollution from the appellant’s workshop.

The Court found that the evidence of there being no pollution was not satisfactory. The appellant had failed to prove any of its grounds.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal.