Sylvain - Indeed - upon review, it is apparent that "the standing of the current injunction is the basis on which the judge ruled that the appeal was effectively moot and therefore dismissed it.” (as stated by Owen).
However, the weakness of such a statement is that it doesn’t convey the full context of the learned judge's ruling - the “disturbing features” of the entire matter before the court of record, the “concern at the number of successive applications lodged by the appellant against the respondent praying in effect for the same remedy.", etc. This is why the other assertion that Owen made (i.e. "the appeal was dismissed _strictly_ (emphasis added) on the grounds that the existing injunction essentially renders the appeal moot.”) is more speculative in nature – as one cannot know if it was “strictly” on that basis and/or the extent that these "distributing features” weighed into consideration – only that the full context of all these applications before the court seeking similar remedy was considered sufficiently relevant by the court to be included in the judgement. Thanks again for sharing! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 16 Feb 2022, at 5:14 AM, Sylvain Baya <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear AfriNIC's Community, Hope this email finds you in good health, Please see my comments below, inline... Le mardi 15 février 2022, Dewole Ajao <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : Thanks for the update which you seem to be celebrating (if I read you correctly). For those like me who are legalese-challenged, does this mean that Cloud Innovation's resources are now effectively revoked? Hi Dewole, Thanks for your email, brother :-) ...i'm samely challenged, though, but it's certainly a good new for the stability of the whole INRS... even if it turns out to be just temporary...btw, i know someone, following up and, who could easily & freely explain the sustainable impact of what the honorable judges ruled out. ...i guess i can freely paste the first four pages below: ~°~ CLOUD INNOVATION LTD v AFRICAN NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE (AFRINIC) LTD 2022 SCJ 51 Record No. 121865 THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of:- Cloud Innovation Ltd Appellant v. African Network Information Centre (Afrinic) Ltd Respondent ------------- JUDGMENT This is an appeal against a judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers delivered on 7 July 2021 setting aside an application for injunctive relief. At the hearing, the appellant dropped grounds 1(v), 2, 3 and 5 out of the 7 grounds of appeal. We, however, do not propose to deal with the merits of the remaining grounds of appeal for the reasons set out below. During the hearing, reference was made to 2 other Judge in Chambers applications as well as a “main case”. As a superior Court of record, some disturbing features have now come to our attention. In the present case, the appellant (then applicant) had applied in essence for an injunction restraining and prohibiting the respondent from terminating the membership of the appellant as a resource member of the respondent (“the first application”). In the judgment delivered on 7 July 2021, the learned Judge in Chambers upheld a preliminary objection raised by the respondent and set aside the first application with costs, hence the present appeal. 2 Subsequently, Court records reveal that the same appellant lodged a series of applications before different Judges sitting in Chambers on 12 July, 13 July, 3 September, 6 September, 26 November, 1 December and 3 December 2021. The particulars of these applications and of the first application have been set out in tabular form in an annex to this judgment (Annex A). From a reading of all these applications, it is patently clear that the appellant was in effect praying for the same remedy in all of them, namely to restrain and prohibit the respondent from terminating the membership of the appellant as a resource member of the respondent. All the applications have been set aside except for the ones lodged on 6 September 2021 and 3 December 2021. For the purposes of this appeal, the application lodged on 3 December 2021 (“the last application”) is of particular interest. In this application, the learned Judge in Chambers granted, ex parte, an interim order in the following terms:- “…. let an interim order in the nature of an injunction issue, restraining and prohibiting the respondent, either by itself, its agent, representatives or préposé from: (i) acting in any manner whatsoever on or giving effect to its Board Resolution of the 8th July 2021 or any similar Board resolution or its letter of the 1st December 2021 or any other similar letter, in any manner whatsoever, which has the effect of terminating the membership of the applicant in the respondent as a Resource Member; and (ii) acting on or giving effect to its decision, in any manner whatsoever, which has the effect of breaching the Undertaking of the 15th July 2021 in application bearing Serial No. 1040/2021.” The matter has now been made returnable to show cause why the interim order should not be made interlocutory “pending the determination of the disputes between the parties”. Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited us to quash the judgment in the first application and to remit it for consideration before a different Judge. We are of the view that this would serve no useful purpose and be a waste of time and resources. In the light of the above, it is clear that the appellant has already been granted interim injunctive relief in wide terms in the last application but is still insisting on proceeding with the first application wherein it is in effect applying for the same remedy. There is no raison d’être 3 for the first application and hence for this appeal. It is a matter of regret that, with regard to their duty towards the Court, the legal advisers did not deem it fit to apprise us of the existence and particulars of the last application where the appellant has, in the meantime, been granted interim injunctive relief. We must also express our concern at the number of successive applications lodged by the appellant against the respondent praying in effect for the same remedy. It would seem that the appellant is bent on having multiple bites at the cherry. In these circumstances, contrary to what we were told at the hearing, we are of the view that, even if we were to allow the present appeal, it would be academic and serve no practical purpose. In this context, it is apposite to the following dictum in McNaughton v McNaughton’s Trs. (1953) SC 387, quoted with approval in Planche v The PSC [1993 SCJ 128]:- “Our courts have consistently acted on the view that it is their function in the ordinary run of contentious litigation to decide only live, practical questions, and that they have no concern with hypothetical, premature or academic questions, nor do they exist to advise litigants as to the policy which they should adopt in the ordering of their affairs. The courts are neither a debating club nor an advisory bureau.” We wish to add that, as far as we have been able to ascertain, no main case has been lodged by the appellant so far. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the pursuance of this appeal would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. This appeal is accordingly set aside with costs. D. Chan Kan Cheong Judge R. Teelock Judge 14 February 2022 4 Judgment delivered by Hon. D. Chan Kan Cheong, Judge For Appellant : Mrs Y. Hurnaurn-Calcutteea Attorney-at-Law, Mr N. S. Singla, Queen Counsel together with Mr R. Gulbul, of Counsel For Respondent : Mr M. Mardemootoo, Senior Attorney Sir H. Moollan, Queen Counsel together with Mr A. Radhakissoon, of Counsel Mr A. Adamjee, of Counsel Ms P. Gokhool, of Counsel Ms S. Chinien, of Counsel [...] ~°~ If I remember correctly, all of this started with a notice that resources were to be revoked at a certain date on the basis of non-compliance with the RSA, right? ...it certainly started before, with more friendly interactions, as stated by the Bylaws in section 8 (8.2, 8.4 and 8.5) [1]: ~°~ [...] 8) TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP 8.1) The membership of a Registered Member shall terminate upon: [...] 8.3) The membership of an Associate Member shall terminate upon: [...] 8.4) Termination shall not relieve a member from any obligation to pay any fees payable to the Company on or before the date of termination and shall not entitle the Resource and Associate Member to any refund of any fees, whether in whole or in part. 8.5) The Resource Member shall, on termination of its membership, return the resources allocated to it by the Company. [...] ~°~ For the full litigation story, all court cases are listed here [2]. __ [1]: <https://afrinic.net/bylaws#b20-8> [2]: <https://afrinic.net/court-cases> Thanks to: THE Almighty LORD, the Judges, AfriNIC Ltd and the whole Internet Community! Blessings to y'all! Shalom, --sb. On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 3:53 PM AFRINIC Communication <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, I am pleased to share with you the ruling delivered yesterday, 14 February 2022, in the appeal case ref Cloud Innovation Ltd vs African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC) Ltd. https://afrinic.net/ast/case9-judgement.pdf This case was filed in response to a letter that AFRINIC sent to Cloud Innovation Ltd dated 10 March 2021 pursuant to the provisions of the Registration Service Agreement (RSA) whereby AFRINIC contended that Cloud Innovation Ltd was, and continues to be, in breach of the RSA. This appeal stems from Cloud Innovation Ltd’s application for Interim Injunction, which was initially granted in its favour on 29 March 2021, but then set aside by the Honourable Judge in Chambers on 07 July 2021. Cloud Innovation Ltd had appealed against that judgement, and the hearing took place on 27 January 2022. To put it simply, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Mauritius has, after having considered the arguments from both sides, dismissed the appeal. In other words, AFRINIC has won this appeal. No doubt, this is an essential milestone for AFRINIC, and we wish to thank the team and our stakeholders for their continued support. Kind Regards, Eddy Kayihura, Chief Executive Officer, African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> …………………………………………………………………………….. [...] -- Best Regards ! __ baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> __ #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!» #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2) _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
