Indeed. Spin or not. Congrats AFRINIC! Looking forward to the next steps.
Omo On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, 05:10 Mark Tinka, <mark@tinka.africa> wrote: > Step by step. > > Well done, Eddy and team! > > Mark. > > On 2/16/22 03:53, John Curran wrote: > > 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 <absc...@gmail.com> 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 <dew...@tinitop.com> 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 <co...@afrinic.net> >> 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) >>> c...@afrinic.net >>> >>> >>> …………………………………………………………………………….. >>> >>> [...] >>> >> > > -- > > 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 > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing > listCommunity-Discuss@afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss