Section 58:

58. Nature of rights in shares—The plaintiffs were various Mauritian companies. The issue in the case was whether certain provisions of the Companies Act 1984 had deprived the plaintiffs of property in breach of sections 3 and 8 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court took the view that the right to vote and the right to appoint directors conferred by the memorandum and articles of a company were property or rights or interests in property. They also took the view that the provisions of the Act of 1984, which prevent a subsidiary from voting at meetings of its holding company, constituted a deprivation of property or rights and interests in property. CON – 183 [Issue 1] The Constitution HELD on appeal to the Privy Council, reversing the view of the Supreme Court, (i) the Companies Act 1984 insists that voting rights of shares in a company shall not be vested in the directors of the company but shall be attached proportionately to the shares which confer on the shareholders interests in the equity of the company. Minority shareholders were not deprived of property when control ceased to be exercisable by them; (ii) the expression “property” in a Constitution includes property of every description. Nevertheless the expression “property” cannot be extended to the powers of some shareholders to exercise a disproportionate influence over the management and control of the company. Government of Mauritius v Union Flacq Sugar Estates Co Ltd, Government of Mauritius v Medine Shares Holding Co Ltd, Black River Investments Co Ltd and Flacq United Estate Co Ltd (1992) [Privy Council Appeals Nos. 35 and 36 of 1990].