Introduction

When a brand-new car turns out to be defective, what remedies should the law provide? In Jamodhee S.S. v. ABC Motors Co Ltd [2025 SCJ 358], the Supreme Court of Mauritius delivered a striking judgment: the customer was not only entitled to a replacement car but also awarded MUR 1 million in moral damages and MUR 1,500 per day in loss of use - an amount that could surpass MUR 4 million in total.

Issue and Applicable Law

To what extent does the doctrine of vice caché capture the balance between contractual autonomy and consumer protection under Mauritian law? The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether an engine defect in the new Nissan Qashqai purchased in 2017 by the plaintiff constituted a vice caché, thereby entitling him to a replacement car and damages.

The Court’s analysis was predicated on Articles 1641 to 1645 of the Code Civil Mauricien (“CCM”), which provide that a seller is bound by a warranty against hidden defects in a sold item that render it “impropre à l'usage auquel on la destine” or that so diminish its utility that the buyer would not have acquired it, or would have paid a lesser price, had they been aware of the defect.

The plaintiff had the burden of proving four cumulative conditions to succeed in his claim:

1. existence of a defect (l'existence d'un vice);
2. seriousness of the defect (la gravité du vice);
3. hidden nature of the defect (le caractère caché du vice);
4. pre-existence of the defect at the time of the sale (l'antériorité du vice par rapport à la vente).

Critical Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

1. Evidentiary Burden and Inference-Based Reasoning

   The Court’s evidentiary approach in this judgment marks a departure from traditional rigour. Latent defects are notoriously difficult for consumers to establish, particularly where the defect is technical or intermittent. Here, the Court accepted circumstantial indicators - the defendant’s own offer to replace the engine, systemic replacement of hundreds of similar engines, and corroborative testimony from other Nissan Qashqai owners - as sufficient to infer the existence and anteriority of the defect in question.

   Lowering of the evidentiary burden on the plaintiff is consumer-friendly and pragmatic. It acknowledges the structural asymmetry of information between a consumer and a professional seller: the latter has access to, for instance, manufacturer data and technical expertise, while the consumer cannot realistically produce expert-level evidence.

   However, one may question whether this approach risks blurring the line between genuine latent defects and normal product failures that arise post-sale. In future cases, Courts may need to carefully calibrate how much weight to give to circumstantial evidence, particularly where defects are not systemic.

2. Interpretation of Remedies

   One of the most striking aspects of the judgment lies in its treatment of remedies. Articles 1641–1645 of the CCM are traditionally read as limiting the buyer’s options to rescission (action rédhibitoire) or price reduction (action estimatoire). By awarding a replacement car, the Court effectively carved out a third remedy: réparation en nature.

   This approach reflects a purposive interpretation: the goal of the vice caché regime is not merely to restore contractual equilibrium but to ensure that the buyer actually enjoys the use of the good as intended. Réparation en nature, therefore, is not a radical departure but a logical extension of the indemnity principle.
3. Broader implications

   Evidence showed that over 500 Nissan Qashqai engines had been replaced in Mauritius. The Court’s reasoning therefore has immediate ripple effects: dozens, if not hundreds, of consumers may now feel emboldened to sue ABC Motors, opening the so-called floodgates of litigation.

   From the perspective of individual justice, this is welcome: consumers have a clearer path to vindicate their rights. But from a systemic standpoint, the absence of collective redress mechanisms in Mauritius creates inefficiency. Each claim would have to be pursued individually, with repetitive litigation, inconsistent outcomes, and resource strain on both courts and litigants.

   This judgment therefore highlights a regulatory gap: Mauritius lacks class actions under consumer law. Were such mechanisms available, systemic defect litigation could be consolidated, ensuring efficiency and uniformity while reducing the risk of contradictory judgments.

Conclusion

In essence, by easing evidentiary burdens, expanding remedies, and holding professional sellers to higher disclosure standards, the Supreme Court in Jamodhee S. S. v ABC Motors Co Ltd [2025 SCJ 358] has revitalised an old Code Civil provision to meet contemporary consumer realities. This judgment is not however without controversy – the risk is potential overreach and uncertainty for sellers.