One of the respondents in the case meant to import and unload ammonium nitrate based fertilisers into Mauritius and had received a permit. The applicant wanted an interlocutory order in the nature of an injunction restraining and prohibiting these actions, and related orders as necessary during the time before a possible perpetual injunction.

The applicant was a competitor to the company wanting to import ammonium nitrate, but was of the opinion that the use of ammonium nitrate as a fertiliser was dangerous due to the nature of the substance. The Court had to decide whether ammonium nitrate was a dangerous chemical and whether an EIA licence was necessary for the unloading, storing and handling of the substance. The respondent in the case did not have such a licence.

The Court found that it was not within its province to prevent the importation or unloading of these fertilisers as this fell under the Dangerous Chemicals Control Board. Such an administrative decision could then be subject to judicial review.

However, the Court found that ammonium nitrate was classified as a dangerous chemical and therefore discussed the possible EIA requirement. It established that the EIA Act must be interpreted restrictively, and that it must be read in favour of the undertaking. As there is no clear requirement in the case of import and unloading of chemicals, the Court concluded that no such obligation existed.