Ilois Trust Fund v Permal

• Jurisdiction: Mauricio
• Date: 26 April 1985
• Court: Supreme Court (Mauritius)

Mauritius, Court of Civil Appeal.

(Moollan CJ and Espitalier-Nol J)

Ilois Trust Fund

and

Permal

Claims Compensation for displacement Mauritius-United Kingdom Treaty, 1982 Islands of the Chagos Archipelago separated from Mauritius to form part of the British Indian Ocean Territory Ilois people removed from the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius Trust fund for the promotion of the economic and social welfare of the displaced Ilois and the Ilois community Whether Board of Trustees had obligation to pay compensation to members of the Ilois community Ilois Trust Fund Act 1982

Relationship of international law and municipal law Treaties Whether conferring rights upon individuals Chagos Archipelago Agreement, 1982 between Mauritius and the United Kingdom Whether creating right enforceable by individual in courts of Mauritius

States Independence British Colony of Mauritius Preparation for independence in 1968 Territory of the Chagos Archipelago separated from Mauritius Displacement of Ilois people Agreement for full settlement of claims United Kingdom making available 4 million Mauritius undertaking to establish and administer Ilois Trust Fund Whether claim of member of Ilois community to be against Mauritius The law of Mauritius

Summary: The facts:In 1965 the islands of the Chagos Archipelago were separated from the British Colony of Mauritius and made part of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Biot). The Ilois people living in the Chagos Archipelago were removed to Mauritius. In 1982 Mauritius and the United Kingdom entered into an agreement whereby 4 million was made available for the settlement of all the claims of Ilois people. Mauritius agreed to establish and administer the Ilois Trust Fund. The Ilois Trust Fund Act 1982 (the Act) established a Board of Trustees to manage the Fund.

The respondent, an Ilois displaced in 1968 brought an action against the Ilois Trust Fund claiming compensation under the Fund. The appellant Fund contended that there was no duty on the Board to compensate an Ilois, nor a right in any Ilois to claim from the Fund and that the Board had a discretion to decide who should benefit and who should not. The trial Court held that the scope and purpose of the Fund was to benefit the Ilois individually and collectively and that the I1ois had a cause of action under the Act and could claim compensation under the statutory remedy. The Trust Fund appealed on the ground that the trial judge was wrong to hold that, because the 1982...