Section 9 of the Public Bodies Appeal Tribunal Act 2008 provides that:
“9. Judicial Review
(1) Any party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Tribunal under section 8 may apply to the Supreme Court for a judicial review of the decision.
(2) Any party wishing to make an application to the Supreme Court under subsection (1) shall, within 21 days of the date of the notification of the decision of the Tribunal to him –
(a) lodge the application and the grounds thereof at the Registry of the Supreme Court;
(b) at the same time, serve a notice of the application to the Tribunal and the other party."
Since the creation of the Tribunal in 2009, there have been 1689 appeals in which 759 appeals have been determined and 80 have been set aside by a Ruling. 62 have been contested by way of Judicial Review made before the Supreme Court. Details are as per Table below:
| Number of Applications* for Judicial Review | Status |
| 25 | Judgement delivered |
| 3 | Fixed for Merits |
| 2 | Fixed for Arguments |
| 8 | Judgement reserved |
3 on 1st leg 9 on 2nd leg | Being processed |
| 12 | Withdrawn |
| Total: 62 | |
*Several parties may enter an application and only one judgement is given by the Supreme Court.
Judgement has been delivered in the following cases:
Judgements
| Case No. 1. | PSC vs PBAT ipo Mrs Man Lan WONG CHOW MING - Co-Respondent Record No. 104743 - 2011 SCJ 382 (14 November 2011) In this case the Supreme Court stated that all appointees should be given a chance to be heard during any proceedings which could affect them. The Determination of the PBAT was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for the case to be heard anew. Since then, all appointees are being called as Co-Respondents. |
| Case No. 2. | PSC vs PBAT ipo Benoit RAVINA and Ors Record No. 104359 - 2012 SCJ 432 (23 November 2012) The Determination of PBAT quashed and the decision of the PSC has therefore been maintained. |
| Case No. 3. | PSC v PBAT ipo A. RAMDEWOR and Ors Record No. 107241 - 2014 SCJ 94 (27 March 2014) The Determination of PBAT quashed and the decision of the PSC has therefore been upheld. |
| Case No. 4. | A. JEEBODHUN v PBAT ipo PSC and R. BISSESSUR Record No. 107048 - 2014 SCJ 277 (25 July 2014) The Determination of the PBAT has been upheld.* |
| Case No. 5. | C. K. MAUNICK v PBAT ipo LGSC, Anwar SOODHUN and Ors Record No. 108704 (September 2014) Application for leave refused. Application set aside with costs.
The Determination of the PBAT is therefore upheld.* |
| Case No. 6 | Abdool Gorah Bhai JUMUN v PBAT ipo LGSC, Ajay JEAWON and
Saiyad Ali BOODHUN Record No. 108644 - 2015 SCJ 31 (05 February 2015) The Application is set aside. The Determination of the PBAT is therefore upheld.* |
| Case No. 7 | Marie Marianne JOLICOEUR and Ors v PBAT ipo PSC Record No. 109262 (05 March 2015) The Determination of the PBAT nullified. |
| Case No. 8 | PSC v PBAT ipo Ramoo MANIKON and Ors Record No. 106778 (18 March 2015) The Determination of the PBAT is quashed and the decision of the PSC is therefore maintained. |
| Case No. 9 | Parmanand POTHUNNAH v (1) PBAT and (2) B. THORUL ipo LGSC and
B. F. OOZEER Record No. 108582 (25 May 2015) The Determination of the PBAT is quashed and set aside. The decision of the PSC is therefore maintained. |
| Case No. 10 | Mr Khemraj Prakash Ajit Kumar DUSOYE and Mr Rajcoomar SEENAUTH v LGSC and PBAT ipo (1) Mr Bhoopnarain THORUL
(2) Mr Parmanand POTHUNNAH and (3) Bibi Farozia OOZEER Record No. 108610 - 2015 SCJ 164 (25 May 2015) Decision of the LGSC quashed. |
| Case No. 11 | Mr Ghumanand HEERAMUN v PBAT ipo PSC, Yugesh Dutt PANDAY and Ors Record No.107699 - 2015 SCJ 269 (23 July 2015) Application is set aside with costs. Determination of the PBAT upheld.* |
| Case No. 12 | Manoj HOSANEE and 9 Ors v The Public Bodies Appeal Tribunal ipo
PSC, Ahliavatee BHAUGREET and 16 Ors. Record No.107949 (25 March 2016) Application set aside with costs. Determination of the PBAT upheld.* |
| Case No. 13 | Mrs Indira RUCHAIA-PUDARUTH (2) Mr Leelawant UJOODHA and
Mr Prakash BEEKAWOO v PBAT ipo PSC, Marie Joelle Sandrine VALERE and Ors. Record No. 2016 - 2016 SJC 483 (24 November 2016) Ruling: Determination of the PBAT upheld.* Appeals were to be heard on the merits but were withdrawn. |
| Case No.14 | LGSC v PBAT ipo R. BOODHUN Record No. 108829 – 2016 SCJ 511 (09 December 2016) Determination of the PBAT quashed and the decision of the LGSC has therefore been maintained. |
| Case No. 15 | Zaid BACKAR and Ors v PBAT and Soorajsingh Vedprakash BIJLOLL ipo LGSC Record No: 111789 (5A/129/15) (16 May 2017) Determination of the PBAT and LGSC quashed and matter remitted back to the Co-Respondent (LGSC) for it to carry out a fresh selection exercise in compliance with all the legal criteria set out in the LGSC Regulations. It must be noted that the PBAT had according to the judgement of the Supreme Court “requested (as it was entitled to do under Section 6 of the PBAT Act) from the Co-Respondent, the list of criteria together with the weightage attached to each criterion and the marks allocated against each criterion for each candidate. However, the Co-Respondent did not provide the required information but rather the marks given by each member of the Panel and the total markings and NOT the markings given under each criterion. For these reasons, the Tribunal quashed the
Co-Respondent's decision. The applicants are of the view that the respondent ought to have insisted for communication of the requested information." It appears from the Co-Respondent's affidavit of 15.01.16 at paragraph 16(c) that the Panel allocated general total markings of each candidate and all the available information has been communicated to the respondent for the review exercise. It is agreed that the process adopted by the
Co-Respondent does not comply with Rule 13 of the LGSC –Regulations of 1984. In the circumstances, the Tribunal could not adequately carry the review exercise and all Counsel agreed that the Co-Respondent's decision was flawed ab initio. |
| Case No. 16 | Govindarasen NAYAGEN v PBAT ipo LGSC, Yusuf Ally MOORTOOZA DURBARRY and Ors Record No. 111358 - 2017 SCJ 254 (7 July 2017) The Determination of the PBAT was quashed with costs and the decision of the PSC has therefore been maintained. |
| Case No. 17 | PSC v PBAT ipo (1) Nassir Ally KHADUN (2) Koshik REESAUL Record No. 114628 - 2019 SCJ 137 (15 May 2019) The Determination of the PBAT was quashed and the decision of the PSC has therefore been maintained. |
| Case No. 18 | Yodhun BISSESSUR v (1) PBAT (2) PSC ipo The Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Record No. 114781 - 2019 SCJ 245 (18 September 2019) Application set aside with costs. Determination of the PBAT upheld.* |
| Case No. 19 | Bharati BAHADOOR-DOORGA v PBAT ipo PSC, Logambale POOLEE-COOTEE and Ors Record No. 113237 - 2019 SCJ 309 (18 November 2019) Application set aside with costs. Determination of the PBAT upheld *
|
| Case No. 20 | Daneswar BUROSAH v PBAT ipo LGSC and The District Council of Flacq. Record No. 117274 (17 January 2020) Leave refused. Application set aside with costs. Determination of the PBAT upheld * |
| Case No. 21 | Sanjeev Kumar LECKRAZ v PBAT ipo PSC, Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping and Ors SCR No: 117812 (5A/382/18) The application was set aside. Determination of the PBAT upheld * |
| Case No. 22 | Saifuddin Saif JOOMUN v PBAT ipo (1) LGSC (2) Jean Francois Michael ENOUF (3) Chandrasekar SEETOHUL (4) Ravichand MADHUB. Record No 114319 - 2020 SCJ 247 (13 October 2020) Application set aside with costs. Determination of the PBAT upheld * |
| Case No. 23 | Chetanand IMRIT and Ors v PBAT ipo (1) PSC (2) Anusha DABY and Ors Record No 114579 - 2020 SCJ 309 (26 November 2020) Application set aside with costs. Determination of the PBAT upheld * |
| Case No. 24 | Beebee Parween ROJOA and 3 Others v PBAT ipo PSC and Kanye-Tooree and Ors (30 Co-Respondents) Record No 116120 - 2021 SCJ 63 (26 February 2021) Determination of PBAT quashed and the decision of the PSC has therefore been maintained. |
| Case No. 25 | Doorgawatee NAPAL v PBAT ipo PSC and Sheela RAMSAHA and Ors Record No 113667 - 2021 SCJ 134 (11 May 2021) Application set aside with costs. Determination of PBAT upheld.* |
*Each determination of the PBAT which has been upheld (and not an abstract) will be included on the website in its proper place. The same applies to the 12 applications withdrawn.