LALIT is following the Criminal investigation against the top brass at the Mauritius Commercial Bank with interest. We are publishing below the civil plaint that has also been lodged, by Ms. Michelle Tsang Ping, against the Mauritius Commercial Bank. It has taken one year since Ms Michelle Tsang Ping reported the case to the police, who have finally begun an investigation into the bank bosses and their lawyers’ behavior.
We are following the case because it exposes two or three very important features of a class society, and in particular of the feudal impunity with which the Mauritian oligarchy has for centuries operated. The civil plaint published below also enables the public to get an idea of the facts reported by Ms. Tsang Ping that are the basis for the criminal investigation.
Firstly, the Mauritius Commercial Bank obliges all its employees, from the humblest to the loftiest, to bank with no other financial institution than . . . the Mauritius Commercial Bank, itself. This means that Ms. Tsang Ping, like all employees, is also a “client” of the Bank. Imagine the inordinate power Bank bosses accumulate over their employees by this “rule”. One would think it should be illegal to force staff of a bank to have their employer as their banker.Imagine it. Your boss controls your pay and also any loans you might have. He has handy access to all your financial commitments, all your money worries, even your daily expenses, like what products you buy at what supermarket, your tastes, your hobbies, or even what medicines you buy at the pharmacy. This is a truly unacceptable double-control as employer and as money-lender. It is a caricature of the “equality” we are supposedly guaranteed while we live in a class society.
Secondly, the Bank can use, and in this case is alleged to have not only used but abused, its authority as employer in order to bring pressure to bear on a staff member concerning accounts that she holds as a clientof the Bank, and vice versa. And the Bank bosses obviously even thought they could get away with it, such is their historical impunity.
Thirdly, when her friend and colleague, also an employee of Mauritius Commercial Bank and thus also a client there, died two years ago in August 2011, the profound problems inherent in the Bank’s control as both employer and Banker began in earnest for Ms. Tsang Ping.
The background is that she had held joint accounts at the MCB together with her deceased friend, accounts of the “either or survivor”type amounting to some Rs 5 million. This means what it says. When one of the account holders dies, the other controls the money on the spot. Ms. Tsang Ping, however, when her friend died, soon found herself without control over the money in these MCB accounts. This is particularly shocking when we realize she was unable to keep her control over her account even though she was such a high-level bank official, what with all the knowledge and experience she had of banking laws and customs. She was manager in charge of the SWIFT section of MCB. Despite this, she lost control of a joint “either or survivor” account. In addition, and this is even more curious, she was one of the two executors of her late friend’s will. The mind boggles. The man in the street would be pardoned for wondering what would happen to an ordinary account holder’s account.
And when Ms. Tsang Ping refused to take this lying down, and went to the Police, she was suspended at work, and then sacked in November, 2012.
It has taken her and her lawyer a full yearto get the Police to act. We are reminded of the speed with which the CID act in other cases.
It is bewildering to note that it has taken a full year to get the Press to cover the issue at all.
Some newspapers have finally done so, but only once they could hide behind the CCID, when it took action.
Of course, one MCB boss implicated is also a Press boss, which goes some way to explaining the silence of his press empire. His coverage, inasmuch as it exists even now, is bizarre. One article is even type-set as a sub-article on page 4 of a bigger article about another Bank altogether! (L’Express, 14 August, 2013). These givers of lessons in ethics have very elastic coverage of the different recent “conspiracy” cases. On 18 August, Philippe Forget, the one who was an MCB boss and is now a full-time L’Expressboss, ex-Blok 104 candidate for general elections, in his Sunday editorial broke down in self-pity about the MCB bosses’ reputations’ being smeared (“salir”) by, inter alia, the lawyer of the victim of the MCB. He weeps his tears without having informed his readers of the facts of the case. As well as the MCB-L’Expressconnection, there is also the MCB-Le Mauricien/Week-End connection, despite whichLe Mauricien has given appropriate coverage twice, once the CCID began investigations. Week-End (famille oblige) gave much less space in its one and only article than it does to other high-class conspiracy cases. Maybe they are merely being cautious. Would that the Press as a whole was as cautious in publishing some of the lowdown slander they all publish, sometimes for so little political gain (to weaken a political party they are at that moment against) or so little in terms of sales (to pump up some scandal). Mauritius really does need media that is independent of the bourgeoisie and of the State. As in all class societies, this is one of the major challenges as we fight for more equality.
It is indeed very difficult even to stand up to an institution like the MCB, in the face of its influence over the media. Even in the 3rd Millenium. A brave employee/customer who has lost everything,Ms. Michelle Tsang Ping, and her equally brave lawyer, Jean-Claude Bibi, have taken them on with great dignity and perseverance.
One has to have a lot of dignity and perseverance to stand up to the MCB.
Why is this? It is because the MCB is the very heart of bourgeois class rule. As such, it has inordinate power in society. What with all that money and power getting pumped in and out of it, power well beyond that of any one bit of class society’s State apparatus.
The organic links between the MCB and the two main Press empires make the task of exposing any wrongdoing by the Bank even more up-hill. Many barristers fear to take on cases against the MCB. They have children studying abroad, for instance, on MCB loans. Individual police officers fear to summon these bosses, or to call for warrants for their arrest, for similar reasons. Individual journalists hesitate to stick their necks out, especially if they work for the empire that knits together the MCB and their own bosses. Or even journalists who may in the future to apply to this press empire for a job. In general, there is a climate of fear around the MCB that usually surrounds rather more sordid organizations than Banks.
It had to take Judges, for example, from the Queen’s own Privy Council, way over across the sea in the old Colonial “metropole”, to have the necessary authority to rap the knuckles of even the Mauritian Judiciary for its acting in so blatantly biassed a fashion in a previous MCB Case in which hundreds of millions of National Pension Fund money had disappeared from its MCB Account. Other than that reprimand from afar, the Bank managed to remain largely unscathed, after the NPF’s money had disappeared. It shows the power of the bourgeoisie in modern capitalist society.
In conclusion, we publish below, the civil plaint against the MCB, so that the facts put forward are clear for readers:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS
In the matter of:-
Michele TSANG PING
A Bank Manager, of G Blackburn Street, Rose-Hill
1. The Mauritius Commercial Bank Limited
A bank, having its registered office situated at Sir William Newton Street, Port-Louis
2. Roxanne POTIE
a bank employee, having her place of work at
MCB Head Office, Sir William Newton Street, Port-Louis
3. Roselyne LEBRASSE-RIVET
a bank employee, having her place of work at
MCB Head Office, Sir William Newton Street, Port-Louis
4. Dominique D'UNIENVILLE
a bank employee, having his place of work at
MCB Head Office, Sir William Newton Street, Port-Louis
5. Philippe FORGET
Deputy Chief Executive of The MCB Ltd, having his place of work at MCB Head Office, Sir William Newton Street, Port-Louis
6. Anthony R. WITHERS
Chief Executive (Banking) of The MCB Ltd, having his place of work at MCB Head Office, Sir Newton Street, Port-Louis
7. Eddy JOLICOEUR
Group Head of Human Resources of The MCB Ltd, having his place of work at MCB Head Office, Sir William Newton Street, Port-Louis
PLAINT WITH SUMMONS
1. The Plaintiff, a Bank Manager was at all material times and still is a Customer of the Defendant Nº1. She is employed by the Defendant Nº1.
2. The Defendant Nº1 is a company owns and operates a bank known as The Mauritius Commercial Bank (the “MCB”) and is the employer and “commettant” of Defendants Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. As such, it is liable for their professional acts, doings, omissions and wrongdoings.
3. The Defendants Nos 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all employees and “préposés” of Defendant Nº1. The Defendants Nº5 and Nº6 are Chief Executive Officers and are the superiors of the Defendants Nos 2, 3, 4 and 7.
4. The Defendant Nº1 has in force a policy that prohibits its employees to hold bank accounts or carry out any financial transactions with any other bank than the Defendant Nº1 unless they have the latter’s approval as set out in its “Guide des Employés”:
“Aucun employé de doit opérer un compte ou effectuer des transactions financières dans une autre banque sans l’assentiment de la Direction. »
5. The Plaintiff and one of her closest friends and colleagues, Miss Patricia Smith, held at all material times 3 joint accounts at the MCB with monies totaling Rs.4,173,795. There were 2 fixed deposit accounts, one with the amount of Rs.2,000,000 and the other Rs.300,000 as well as one savings account.
6. The said Patricia Smith died on 11th August 2011 and, in her will, designated the Plaintiff and one other person as her "exécuteurs testamentaires".
7. The said 3 joint accounts were each governed by opening contracts binding the Plaintiff as a Customer and all the Defendants.
8. One of the essential terms of the contracts in respect of the 2 fixed deposit joint accounts provided as follows:
"0n the death of either one or any one of us (as the case may be), the balance standing to the credit of the account shall be payable to the survivor as the bank's sole creditor for the said balance without prejudice, however, to any rights the bank may have in respect thereof, arising out of any lien, mortgage, charge, pledge, set-off, counterclaim or otherwise whatsoever and also subject to compliance with the law".
9. The third joint account, the savings account, is also governed by a contract with a similar term as quoted above at paragraph 8 above.
10. After the demise of Miss Patricia Smith on 11th August 2011, all the Defendants were lawfully and contractually bound to recognise and acknowledge that the Plaintiff, as Customer and joint account holder, was the sole owner of all monies held in the said three joint accounts and lawfully entitled to manage the said accounts without any impediment and/or any interference of any nature by her employer, the Defendant Nº1 and the other Defendants, its “préposés”.
11. In late August or in early September 2011, the Defendant Nº2, after consulting with the Defendant Nº1's Legal Business Unit, confirmed that the Plaintiff was the sole legal owner of the monies in the three joint accounts and also informed the Plaintiff that she could terminate the 2 fixed deposit accounts if she so wished.
12. The Defendants were at all material times obligated and bound to accept and implement lawful instructions given by the Plaintiff as the Customer.
13. In late August or early September 2011, the Plaintiff, as a Customer of the Defendant Nº1, withdrew without any problem the amount of Rs.18,000 at the MCB's counters from the said savings account.
14. The Plaintiff avers that, subsequently, at all material times, all the Defendants unlawfully refused to acknowledge and recognise her rights as Customer as outlined in paragraph 10 above. All the Defendants, unlawfully abusing of their power and authority over her as her employer and / or superior, conspired to implement and did implement an unlawful policy of preventing her to manage as she wished, the three said joint accounts in which she held funds lawfully owned by her.
15. The Plaintiff avers that, by such unlawful and unethical misconduct that was in breach not only of their contractual obligations but also of her constitutional rights to own and dispose of her own property, the Defendants committed a “faute” against the Plaintiff.
16. On 15th September 2011, the Plaintiff, as a Customer of the Defendant Nº1, lawfully instructed the Defendant Nº2 that she wished to terminate the 2 fixed deposit accounts and to credit the funds to her personal account. The Plaintiff also lawfully instructed her to provide the balance standing on the savings account as the Plaintiff wished to transfer the monies therein to her personal account.
17. Instead of complying with the said instructions, the Defendant Nº2 refused to do so and sent an email to the Plaintiff stating that she would first contact the Defendant Nº1's Legal Business Unit and would then revert to the Plaintiff.
18. The Defendant Nº2, as a “préposé” of the Defendant Nº1, never reverted to the Plaintiff and never complied with her instructions. The Plaintiff avers that by such misconduct of its “préposé”, The Defendant Nº1 as “commettant” of the Defendant Nº2 as well as the Defendant Nº2, violated the Plaintiff’s contractual rights as a Customer and also committed a “faute” against the Plaintiff.
19. Subsequently, the Plaintiff contacted by phone one Parvesh Jaddoo, another “préposé” of the Defendant Nº1, posted at the Legal Department of the MCB, in order to enquire about why her said instructions to the Defendant Nº2 had not been complied with.
20. The said Parvesh Jaddoo thereupon informed the Plaintiff that he had received orders not to speak to the Plaintiff about the 3 joint accounts because the subject was “very sensitive”. The Plaintiff avers that by adopting such a policy, the Defendants Nos 1, 3, 5 and 6 were in effect denying her access to the joint accounts and to the monies therein she lawfully held and owned.
21. On 12th October 2011, the Defendant Nº2, acting as a “préposé” of the Defendant Nº1, informed the Plaintiff by email that the Defendant Nº1 had decided to transfer“tous les avoirs”of the late Patricia Smith to Notary Maigrot" pour les besoins de la succession".
22. The Defendant Nº3 was at all material times the Group in-house lawyer of the Defendant Nº1, and together with the Defendants Nº2 and Nº4, who were responsible for the management of the said three joint accounts, willfully and unlawfully implemented the criminal policy and decision of the Defendant Nº1 to deprive the Plaintiff of her ownership and her access to funds she lawfully held and owned as a Customer of the MCB.
23. Subsequently, the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendants Nos1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 had unlawfully conspired to reach the conclusion that a lady called Vanessa Netti Brown, a UK resident and niece of the late Patricia Smith, was allegedly the owner of all the funds in the three said joint accounts held by the Plaintiff.
24. Eventually in March 2012, the Defendants Nº1 and Nº6 attempted to justify in writing this unlawful conclusion by falsely and dishonestly stating in writing that they had acted, on the strength of a "letter"he had received from the said Vanessa Netti Brown and also on the strength of "arguments" the latter had put forward.
25. The Plaintiff, though she was the "executeur testamentaire"of the late Patricia Smith, was never made privy by any the Defendants to the said letter nor to the allegedly persuasive arguments of the said Vanessa Netti Brown that supposedly impressed and/or charmed a seemingly experienced banker like the Defendant Nº6 to such an extent that he unlawfully, dishonestly and unethically preferred to criminally attempt to expropriate / defraud / dispossess the Plaintiff by violating the contractual obligations binding the Defendants and the Plaintiff.
26. The Defendant Nº5 was at all times an active and malevolent accomplice of the Defendant Nº6 and approved of, aided and abetted the said unlawful policy of the Defendant Nº1 and the Defendant Nº6 to expropriate the Plaintiff.
27. In truth and in fact the Defendant Nº 3, a subordinate of the Defendants Nº 5 and Nº6 had already on 23rd November 2011 addressed a report to the Defendants Nº2, Nº4 and Nº5 as well as to the Compliance Department, Fraud, Audit, Operational Riskand therein had ventilated the deliberately fallacious legal opinion that concluded that the will of the late Patricia Smith allegedly conferred on the said Vanessa Netti Brown the legal ownership of the monies in the said three joint accounts held by the Plaintiff.
28. The Defendant Nº3 and all the other Defendants knew very well that in truth and in fact and in law that all the funds found in the three said joint accounts became the sole property of Plaintiff as per the opening contracts governing the said joint accounts.
29. The Defendant Nº3 in the said report falsely stated that in her will the late Patricia Smith allegedly bequeathed all her assets and belongings to her niece, the said Vanessa Netti Brown, whereas in truth and in fact the late Patricia Smith in her will identified her sister as heiress to her Estate and only mentioned her niece in the second codicil to her will when she learnt that her sister had died.
30. The Defendant Nº3 in the said report maliciously and dishonestly put forward the fallacious proposition that the will of the late Patricia Smith supposedly superseded and abolished the contractual obligations existing at all material times between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Further, the Defendants Nos 1, 5 and 6, who should have known better and did know better, unlawfully and cynically condoned, approved, endorsed and generally went along with the perverse “legal” position adopted by the Defendant Nº3.
31. Indeed and in fact, the Defendants Nos 2, 3 and 4 with the unlawful complicity of the Defendants Nos 5 and 6 actively, spitefully, maliciously and unlawfully encouraged and incited, as part of their unlawful conspiracy, the said Vanessa Netti Brown to believe that she, and not the Plaintiff, was the true owner of monies held and owned by the Plaintiff in the said three joint accounts.
32. It is also falsely and dishonestly stated in the said report by the Defendant Nº3 that Plaintiff allegedly“presented herself at our counters to withdraw the monies standing to the credit of the said joint account/fixed deposits”when in fact and in truth the Plaintiff never did so and made her request by email to the Defendant Nº2.
33. Further, in the said report, the Defendant Nº3 falsely and dishonestly stated inter alia "that all accounts held in the name of Patricia Smith shall be converted into "Succession Patricia Smith" until due settlement of the Estate is proceeded with." The Plaintiff avers that the Defendants had no legal right whatsoever to dispose, and even to comment on and/or write reports about funds lawfully held and owned by her as a Customer in her three joint accounts at the MCB.
34. The Plaintiff maintains that the proposed conversion mentioned in the said report was unlawful and motivated by the criminal intention of the Defendants Nos 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 and 6 who had been unlawfully and criminally planning and/or conspiring to violate her contractual rights as a Customer by attempting to deprive/defraud and dispossess her and by denying her access to funds belonging to her as all the Defendants did know full well and/or should have known as experienced bankers that the Plaintiff, a Customer of the MCB, was the lawful owner of all funds in the three said joint accounts.
35. On 11th November 2011, the Plaintiff had lawfully transferred the amount of Rs.1,873,000 from her joint savings account to her personal account.
36. In the said report the Defendant Nº3 also falsely and dishonestly stated that the Plaintiff had made the above mentioned lawful transfer "a l'insu de la banque"with the clear insinuation that the Plaintiff had acted unlawfully and fraudulently since the Defendant Nº3 therein falsely and maliciously stated that the Plaintiff had allegedly "availed of her position within the bank's premises"to transfer the said amount of Rs.1,873,000 to her personal account with the malicious, malevolent and defamatory inference that the Plaintiff had dishonestly stolen / embezzled / misappropriated money that supposedly belonged to the said Vanessa Netti Brown.
37. In truth and in fact, the Plaintiff, as a Customer of the MCB, had simply and lawfully availed herself of her legal rights as the legal owner of funds held by her at the MCB.
38. On 23rd November 2011, the Plaintiff, who for several months had been harassed and had been feeling humiliated, depressed, distressed and mentally exhausted on account of the wrongdoings and unlawful misconduct and omissions of the Defendants, particularly that of the Defendants Nos 2 and 3, met with Mr.Pierre-Guy Noel, the Group Chief Executive of the Defendant Nº 1, to complain about her predicament and the malevolent attitude of the Defendant Nº3 who contemptuously and hysterically refused to consider her as a bona fideCustomer of the Defendant Nº1.
39. The Plaintiff remitted to the said Mr.Pierre Guy Noel copies of the account opening contracts pertaining to the said two fixed deposit accounts. The latter, an experienced banker with a solid reputation, expressed the view that the will of the late Patricia Smith had nothing to do with the joint accounts and temporarily comforted the Plaintiff by stating that he would personally look into the matter and revert to the Plaintiff.
40. A few days after meeting with Mr.Pierre-Guy Noel, the Plaintiff was advised by her direct superior, Mrs.Salonee Lallah, that the Defendants Nos 5 and 6 were insisting that the Plaintiff should "return the funds immediately to the Bank” and were threatening to take sanctions against her.
41. Thereupon, the Plaintiff met with the Defendants Nº5 and Nº6 and the latter there and then unlawfully and criminally demanded that funds lawfully belonging to the Plaintiff be "immediately returned to theBank". Further, the Defendants Nos 1, 5 and 6 threatened the Plaintiff in no uncertain terms that, if their (unlawful) demand was not complied with, severe sanctions would be inflicted upon her.
42. The Plaintiff was so traumatised by such a criminal demand and the dire threats uttered by the Defendants Nº5 and Nº6 that she feared very much she would be unjustly fired after 32 years of loyal service and thus losing her pension benefits.
43. The Plaintiff stands advised that the Defendants Nº5 and Nº6 and their “commettant”, the Defendant Nº1, have committed the offence of demanding from her, their Customer, money belonging to her held in the books of the Defendant Nº1 by using the threats of taking sanctions against her. The Plaintiff stands advised to report the said offence to the Bank of Mauritius and to the Police for enquiry. The Plaintiff has in fact complained to the Bank of Mauritius and upon receiving the assessment of her complaint by the Bank of Mauritius, intends to report the matter to the Police.
44. The Plaintiff avers that all the Defendants, particularly the Defendants Nos 1, 3, 5 and 6, have maliciously, cruelly, cynically, unethically and criminally abused of their powers as her employer and / or her superiors to harass, intimidate, humiliate, threaten, confuse and attempt to and / or defraud, dispossess, expropriate and extort money from her as well as to tarnish her reputation.
45. The Plaintiff further avers that these acts and wrongdoings of the Defendants amount to a “faute” against her.
46. On 12th January 2012, the Plaintiff again met Mr.Pierre-Guy Noel and complained again that she was still being harassed and badly treated by the Defendants and that her reputation and mental health were suffering as a result of such harassment and ill-treatment.
47. On 12th January 2012 the said Mr.Pierre-Guy Noel confirmed to the Plaintiff that the funds in the said three joint accounts were lawfully hers and promised to sort matters out quickly. Yet two months went by without any response or news from Mr.Pierre-Guy Noel.
48. The Plaintiff, being frightened by the criminal demand and threats of the Defendants Nº5 and Nº6, as mentioned in paragraphs 40 and 41 above, was so harassed and worn down by the unlawful acts and wrongdoings of the Defendants that on 29th March 2012, after discussing her predicament with the said Vanessa Netti Brown, with whom throughout she had maintained a continuous and friendly correspondence, the Plaintiff, felt compelled to share equally between herself and the said Vanessa Netti Brown the funds she lawfully owned in the said three joint accounts.
49. The Defendants Nº1 and Nº4, though at all material times unlawfully refusing the Plaintiff access to her three joint accounts and denying that the Plaintiff was lawfully the holder of the two fixed deposit accounts and of the savings account as well, as being the owner of the monies therein, required the Plaintiff’s permission and signature on 29th March 2012 to terminate the said two fixed deposit accounts and to close the savings account.
50. On 20th March 2012 the Defendant Nº6 wrote a letter to the Plaintiff and therein he dishonestly reiterated that the said Vanessa Netti Brown was supposedly the owner of the said funds that in fact lawfully belonged to the Plaintiff. The Defendant Nº6 reproached her of having embarrassed the Defendant Nº1 and / or the MCB and reiterated his unethical and unlawful demand and / or order thinly disguised as a request and that funds belonging to the Plaintiff should be returned ”forthwith" (his emphasis).
51. On or about the same day, the Plaintiff, who was severely distressed and frightened, sought the assistance of Mr.Siv Pottaya, a Barrister and an ex-colleague of hers (as he was formerly employed by the Defendant Nº1) to reply to the Defendant Nº6‘s letter.
52. Mr.Siv Potayya did reply by letter to the Defendant Nº6 on 22nd March 2012 and the latter replied to Mr.Potayya by letter of even date and therein the Defendant Nº6 falsely and dishonestly stated that the Plaintiff allegedly “had herself communicated to the Bank that the funds....did not belong to her”whilst deliberately and in bad faith omitting to state when, where and how (whether orally or in writing) the Plaintiff had allegedly admitted that she was not the legal owner of the said funds.
53. In his reply to Mr.Potayya, the Defendant Nº6, whilst using in bad faith the cynical subterfuge of alleging the said fictitious admission of the Plaintiff, did not bother to refer to or to refute the legal opinion expressed by Counsel Potayya in respect of the legal ownership of the said funds. Further, the Defendant Nº6 also falsely, cynically and in bad faith stated therein that “funds had been accordingly transferred …… as agreed by all parties (emphasis added)”is equally untrue and misleading.
54. The Plaintiff was never a party to any agreement with any of the Defendants and / or other “parties” (not identified in the letter signed by the Defendant Nº6) to such an unlawful transfer. The Plaintiff stands advised that this specific matter should be referred to the Bank of Mauritius and to the Police for investigation.
55. On 03rd April 2012, the Defendant Nº6 was advised by letter from Counsel that the Plaintiff denied his dishonest and false allegations in respect of the said fictitious admission and the fictitious participation of the Plaintiff in an equally fictitious agreement to have funds belonging to the Plaintiff transferred. The Defendant Nº6 has since then remained mute and opted not to respond to Counsel’s letter.
56. On 30th March 2012, the Defendant Nº7, another subordinate of the Defendants Nos 1, 5 and 6 and their “préposé” wrote a long letter to the Plaintiff and therein he took on board all the dishonest, malicious and unlawful wrongdoings of the Defendants Nos 5 and 6 and informed her that she had been suspended from her employment and summoned to appear before a disciplinary committee scheduled for 13th April 2012 on the premises of the Defendant Nº1 where and when the Plaintiff would be required to give “explanations as to the above” referring thus to the whole letter and not to any precise charge leveled against her.
57. In the said letter, the Defendants Nº1 and Nº7 falsely and maliciously stated that the Plaintiff had allegedly“unilaterally appropriated the funds which were held in the custody of the Bank as from November 2011…” Further, the Defendant Nº7 falsely and maliciously alleged that the Plaintiff did so by allegedly taking “advantage of her Managerial position at the Bank…”.
58. The Plaintiff avers that by so doing the Defendant Nº7 has joined the plan and conspiracy of all the other Defendants to unlawfully deprive/defraud / dispossess her of her own funds and to implement the threat uttered by the Defendants Nº5 and Nº6 to take sanctions against her in the event that she did not comply with their criminal demand that she should dispossess herself of her own property and hand it over to the Defendant Nº1 and / or to the said Vanessa Netti Brown.
59. Whereas, subsequently, Plaintiff in her capacity as a customer of Defendant no.1, caused a Mise en Demeure to be served on the Defendants in respect of her claim for damages suffered as a result of the illegal acts and wrongdoings of the Defendants.
60. Whereas, thereupon, Defendants no.1, 5 and 6 retaliated by leveling an ‘additional charge” against Plaintiff by grossly and unlawfully abusing of their powers as her employer and simultaneously violating her right as a client to seek redress before the Supreme Court as indicated in the said Mise en Demeure and which Defendants no.1, 5 and 6 arbitrarily and abusively decreed to be allegedly “ malicious” and for which, according to the said Defendants, Plaintiff was bound to provide explanations in her capacity as an employee even though she had initiated legal proceedings in her capacity as a customer.
61. Plaintiff avers that Defendants no.1 , 5 and 6, by acting as described in paragraph 60 above, are again abusing of their powers as an employer to intimidate her and to prevent her to have access and seek redress before the Supreme Court.
62. The Plaintiff avers that she has suffered considerable moral pain, humiliation, and distress as well as material losses as a result of the illegal harassment, acts, omissions and wrongdoings amounting to a “faute” and to a breach of contractual obligations on the part of the Defendants. The Plaintiff estimates the damages that the Defendants are bound in law to make good to her in the amount of Rs.50,,000,000.
63. Plaintiff therefore prays this Honourable Court for a judgment condemning and ordering the Defendants to pay her jointly and in solidothe said amount of Rs.39,000,000 as damages.
With interests and Costs.
TAKE NOTICE, you, the abovenamed Defendants, that you are hereby required, called upon and summoned to be and appear on the floor of the above Court on
the day of 2012 at 09h30 a.m. to answer the abovenamed Plaintiff in the above matter.
WARNING YOU, the above named Defendants, that should you fail to attend Court on the day and hour aforementioned, the Plaintiff may proceed with the above plaint and judgment may be entered against you in favour of the Plaintiff.
TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the Plaintiff intends to adduce in evidence at the hearing of the above matter the hereunder specified documents which may be inspected by you, your attorney or agent at the office of the undersigned Attorney at Law and you are hereby required and summoned to admit that such of the documents as are specified to be originals were respectively written, signed and executed as they purport to be and that such of the documents as are stated to be copies are true copies and that such of the documents as are stated to be sent, served or delivered were so sent, served and delivered as they purport to be saving all just exceptions to the admissibility of the said documents as evidence in this case.
Description of Documents
Under all legal reservations.
Dated at Port-Louis, this 25 th. day of Septemjber 2012.
Of 13 Stratton Court, Lislet Geoffroy Street, Port-Louis
INSTRUCTING COUNSEL JEAN-CLAUDE BIBI