Welcome to the new SeyLII website. Enjoy an improved search engine and new collections. If you are used to accessing SeyLII via Google, note Google will take some time to re-index the site.

We are still busy migrating some of the old content. If you need anything in particular from the old website, it will be available for a while longer at https://old.seylii.org/

Court name
Supreme Court
Case number
MA 211 of 2018
Counsel for plantiff
A. Amesbury

Ex Parte: Jouana Ramkalawan v Hoareau (MA 211 of 2018) [2018] SCSC 778 (23 August 2018);

Media neutral citation
[2018] SCSC 778
Pillay, J



Civil Side: MA 211/2018

(arising in CS111/2018)


       [2018] SCSC 778






Heard:                         24th August 2018

Counsel:                      Mrs. Alexia Amesbury for the plaintiff

Delivered:                   24 August 2018



L. Pillay J


[1]       The Applicant seeks an order from this Court that:

(i)        an interim interlocutory injunction be issued against the Respondent ordering him to remove the debris and other materials blocking the Applicant’s entrance to her property forthwith;

(ii)       the Registrar be directed to cause the said order to be served on the                          Respondent forthwith;

(iii)      upon the interlocutory order  having been made for the matter to be                            fixed inter-partes by the Court on a returnable date.

[2]       The purpose of an ex parte injunction, I note, is solely to prevent irreparable and imminent injury which is substantial in nature and which could not be adequately remedied by an award of damages according to the case of Colling v Labrosse (2001) SLR 236

[3]       The Applicant avers that the Defendant in the main case on 9th August 2018 deposited building blocks, macadam and crusher dust and other debris at the entrance of her property as evidence by the photographs attached.

[4]       Counsel states that again on Tuesday this week the Defendant in the main case has now place two rows of bricks across her driveway.

[5]       Urgent ex-parte interim injunctions are to be granted on a consideration of the urgency involved and impracticability of service on the Defendant before the action sought to be restrained occurs or to halt an action that is occurring. Having noted the manner in which the debris has been placed and the bricks laid I am of the view that should the Court not exercise its discretion the Applicant will be walled in.

[6]       It is further my view that there is a greater risk of harm and prejudice being caused to the Applicant than the Defendant in the main case if the injunction is not granted.

[7]      On the basis of the above, I find that it is an appropriate case where the Court should make an urgent ex-parte order of interim injunction against the Defendant in the main case, as sought by the Applicant.

[8]       I hereby grant an ex parte interim injunction, as follows:

(i)        the Defendant in the main suit and/or his agents is/are ordered to remove the debris and other materials blocking the Applicant’s entrance to her property immediately

(ii)       The order shall remain in force until Monday 3rd September 2018 at 1.45pm on which day and time, the Defendant is required to attend Court, and show cause, if any, against the extension of this order until the final disposal of the matter.

(iii)      The Police shall assist the Applicant if necessary and/or required.

[9]        I direct the Registrar to serve copies of this order forthwith on the Defendant.


Signed, dated and delivered at Ile du Port on      

L. Pillay J
Judge of the Supreme Court