BAI case: international firms challenge the procedure adopted by Dawood Rawat

New twist in the case of the Rs 100 billion complaint filed by Dawood Rawat. The Supreme Court on Friday heard arguments from three international entities challenging the procedure used to include them in this action. The Supreme Court consolidated, this Friday, the three actions brought by PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, Brussels Worldwide Services BV and Grant Thornton International Ltd against businessman Dawood Rawat. Justices Patrick Kam Sing and Denis Mootoo also reserved their judgment after hearing arguments from different parties on a procedural issue. The three international companies are contesting the decision of the judge dated March 26, 2025, having authorized the complaint of Dawood Rawat, former boss of the BAI group, to be served on the three international entities, i.e. outside the jurisdiction of Mauritius.

In his complaint, Dawood Rawat claims Rs 100 billion in damages from the State, several political figures, financial institutions and local and international auditing firms. He claims that the dismantling of his group in 2015 was orchestrated in an abusive manner and caused him considerable economic and moral losses.

The complaint was served following a motion by affidavit of Me Sivakumaren Mardemootoo, acting as agent ad litem. However, the international entities argue, this authorization was obtained following an irregular procedure. They argue that the attorney did not have the required mandate to do so. They add that Dawood Rawat would not have respected his obligation of “full and frank disclosure”, that is to say to disclose to the Court all the material facts when a request is presented ex parte.

At the opening of the debates, Me Shaan Kundomal, lawyer for the Rawats, presented a preliminary motion aimed at disqualifying Me Yahia Nazroo, lawyer for Brussels Worldwide Services BV. He maintained that the latter had previously represented Laina Rawat in criminal proceedings relating to the same facts. Me Nazroo opposed this, recalling that he had intervened on numerous occasions in the present procedure while it was at the pre-trial stage before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The lawyer said he was appearing for the Appleby law firm, whose services were retained by Brussels Worldwide Services BV. The judges invited the parties to resume their arguments on the case itself. For PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, Me Amar Oozeer argued that each firm in the PwC network constitutes a separate legal entity. According to him, PricewaterhouseCoopers Mauritius is a separate company and PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited is not a necessary party to the main dispute, namely the claim for Rs 100 billion in damages.

For her part, Me Ashwina Pittea, for PwC (Mauritius), argued that information accessible to the public had no