Country
Mauritius
Sources
InforMEA
Tagging
Property, Inspections, Jurisdiction, Evidence
Abstract

The accused was charged with failure to comply with sanitary notice in accordance with the Public Health Act and the Environment Protection Act. The accused was keeping dogs in such a manner that the complainant meant it was a health issue. The accused pleaded not guilty.

After a visit by the health inspector, a notice was given requesting the accused of moving his dog to another place where it would not cause a nuisance to other people.

The Court considered whether a sanitary notice like the present was infringing on the right to enjoy ones own property, but the Court concluded that it did not.

Finally the Court considered that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, that the keeping of dogs was a nuisance and that the sanitary notice should have been complied with. The Court thus found the accused guilty as charged.