Mauritius: the legal aspects of defamation in a social media era

In the modern era, defamation has become increasingly prevalent, particularly with the emergence of social media platforms.

Section 288(1) of the Mauritian Criminal Code defines defamation as any imputation or allegation of a fact prejudicial to the honour, character or reputation of the person to whom such fact is imputed or alleged.

The legislative framework

Defamation is an action grounded in tort and therefore finds its source in Articles 1382 and 1383 of the Mauritian Civil Code.

The plaintiff has the responsibility to establish the fault of the defendant on a balance of probabilities. If the plaintiff has been able to establish fault, the defendant will have the duty to establish the defence of good faith from a set of justifying facts.

An action for defamation is lodged either by Praecipe at the District and Intermediate Court level or by way of a Plaint with Summons at the Supreme Court level. An individual who intends to lodge an action for defamation is required to retain the services of both an Attorney-at-Law and a Barrister-at-Law.

At the District Court level, an individual may claim damages for an amount up to MUR 250,000. At the Intermediate Court level, damages may be claimed for an amount up to MUR 2 million. If the claim exceeds MUR 2 million, the action for defamation must be lodged at the Supreme Court.

The pre-trial process will usually last for a period of approximately three to six months.’

Proving defamation under Mauritian law

The elements that a plaintiff must prove, on a balance of probabilities, to succeed under Mauritian law include:

• The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant made an imputation of a specific and determined fact that is prejudicial to their honour, character, or reputation. Pursuant to section 288(1) of the Criminal Code, the said imputation must relate to a precise fact; mere insults, value judgments, or epithets unaccompanied by factual assertions do not suffice to establish an action in defamation.

• The impugned statement must be defamatory according to an objective standard. The standard of assessment applied by the courts is based on the meaning that an ordinary and reasonable reader would attribute to the words, rather than the subjective intention of the author or the interpretation advanced by the plaintiff. Words will be considered defamatory where they tend to lower the plaintiff’s reputation or expose them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. In the context of press publications, the statement must be considered as a whole, including its headline, and not by isolating particular passages.

• The plaintiff must establish fault on the part of the defendant. Under Mauritian law, it is then incumbent upon the defendant to rebut the resulting presumption. An action grounded in Article 1382 of the Civil Code imposes a liability upon any person whose fault causes harm to another.

• The plaintiff must prove that they have suffered damage as a result of the defamatory statement; such damage may consist of injury to reputation, moral prejudice, or pecuniary loss; and

• There must exist a causal link between the defamatory publication and the prejudice alleged, such that the damage is shown to have been caused by the defendant’s faute, in accordance with the requirements of Article 1382.

Defences against defamation

The defence of good faith is a fundamental defence to defamation. The defence of fair comment made in good faith is a complete defence to an action in defamation, provided that the comments are based on true facts. Defendants are required to satisfy four requirements to raise that defence:

• The matter in respect of which the comment is made is a matter of public interest.

• Where the matter consists of facts alleged to have occurred, the facts are true.

• The comment is ‘fair’.

• The statement is not made maliciously.

In Mauritian jurisprudence, there are cases in which the defendants have successfully raised the defence of fair comment made in good faith. In Dookhony vs La Sentinelle Ltd & Anor [2008 SCJ 61], the plaintiff lodged a defamation case against the owner and publisher of the ‘L’Express’ newspaper and the editor-in-chief of the defendant, whereby the defendants’ publications were allegedly false, malicious and defamatory.

The defendants were successful in establishing the defence of good faith inasmuch as the journalist relied on official documents before publication, spoke to the plaintiff in his office in order to confirm details, showed their good faith towards the plaintiff by giving him the opportunity to rectify and amend the articles before publication and established that they had a legitimate purpose to inform the public on matters of great public concern during a period whereby a bank was being wound up. The Court concluded that the articles gave a balanced and faithful account of facts inasmuch as they showed neutrality and impartiality.

Defamation on social media

Increasingly, members of the public are exceeding the boundaries of ‘freedom of expression’ by making defamatory statements on modern social media platforms. The following cases in which defamation has occurred on social media are instructive in analysing the outcomes and consequences thereof.

In the case of Teelock vs Minerve 2023 INT 352, the defendant made defamatory comments and posts about the plaintiff on her public and private Instagram profiles by posting derogatory comments and photographs of the first plaintiff. The defendant failed to justify and substantiate her actions with credible evidence and supporting documentation. The defamatory acts were based on assumptions and beliefs and were the result of her frustration and anger. The Court found that the defendant had committed defamation under Article 1382 of the Civil Code. The defendant was ordered to pay MUR 160 000 in damages to the plaintiffs and to publish an apology to the plaintiffs on her Instagram accounts. It can therefore be argued that it is preferable to gather credible supporting evidence and to pursue legal remedies (declaration to police or legal actions in Court) against an individual who has caused prejudice, instead of posting defamatory comments about that individual on social media platforms.

In the recent case of Ferme Marine de Mahebourg vs Naicken 2025 INT 47, the defendant was found liable for defamation inasmuch as he had made malicious statements in a YouTube video against the plaintiff. The Court concluded that the defendant failed to raise the fair comment defence, as he did not prove the underlying facts stated in the YouTube video, and the comments made were prompted by personal grievances arising from the termination of his employment by the plaintiff. Several factors influenced the decision of the Court, including the fact that a YouTube video is publicly accessible globally, and the fact that the defendant’s interview was conducted in Creole with English subtitles displayed. Therefore, the Court formed the view that the defendant’s objective was to target a large audience, thus amplifying the reputational harm to the plaintiff. As a result, the defendant was ordered to pay MUR 200 000 as damages, to remove the YouTube video from the internet and to publish an apology in two widely circulated local newspapers.

Civil, criminal and corporate defamation

While defamation in civil and criminal contexts share similarities pertaining to their definitions and the conditions to be fulfilled, their outcomes differ. In civil defamation, parties involved are awarded damages (monetary compensation) and are entitled to a public apology from their opponents. On the other hand, an individual who has been found guilty of criminal defamation shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding 50 000 rupees in accordance with Section 288 of the Mauritian Criminal Code.

The concept of corporate defamation is not currently embedded in Mauritian law; therefore, a company seeking to pursue legal action against an individual or another company must do so under Article 1382 of the Mauritian Civil Code. Since the mechanism of corporate defamation has not been properly defined or implemented in Mauritian law, it could be argued that there is scope for reform. However, any improvements should be carried out within a reasonable timeframe given the growth of companies and corporations in Mauritius.

Conclusion

The Mauritian legal framework governing defamation strikes an appropriate balance between the protection of individual reputation and the preservation of freedom of expression.

Nevertheless, as social media continues to expand the reach and speed of potentially defamatory content, it is imperative that both legal practitioners and the public remain vigilant in understanding their rights and obligations under the law, and that the courts continue to adapt their approach to ensure that the principles of accountability and good faith are upheld.