<div dir="auto"><div>Indeed. Spin or not. Congrats AFRINIC!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Looking forward to the next steps. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Omo<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 16 Feb 2022, 05:10 Mark Tinka, <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<font face="Tahoma">Step by step.<br>
<br>
Well done, Eddy and team!<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</font><br>
<div>On 2/16/22 03:53, John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Sylvain -
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div>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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 <span style="text-align:justify">all these applications
before the court seeking similar remedy </span>was
considered sufficiently relevant by the court to be included
in the judgement. </div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks again for sharing!</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 16 Feb 2022, at 5:14 AM, Sylvain Baya <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">abscoco@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>Dear AfriNIC's Community,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hope this email finds you in good health,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please see my comments below, inline...<br>
<br>
Le mardi 15 février 2022, Dewole Ajao <<a href="mailto:dewole@tinitop.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dewole@tinitop.com</a>>
a écrit :<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">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? </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hi Dewole,</div>
<div>Thanks for your email, brother :-)</div>
<div>...i'm samely challenged, though, but it's
certainly </div>
<div>a good new for the stability of the whole
INRS...</div>
<div>even if it turns out to be just
temporary...btw, i </div>
<div>know someone, following up and, who could
easily</div>
<div> & freely explain the sustainable
impact of what the</div>
<div> honorable judges ruled out.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>...i guess i can freely paste the first
four pages below:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>~°~</div>
<div><span style="text-align:justify">CLOUD
INNOVATION LTD v AFRICAN NETWORK INFORMATION CENTRE </span><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
(AFRINIC) LTD</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
2022 SCJ 51</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Record No. 121865</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
In the matter of:-</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Cloud Innovation Ltd</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Appellant</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
v.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
African Network Information Centre (Afrinic) Ltd</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Respondent</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
------------- </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
JUDGMENT</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
This is an appeal against a judgment of the learned
Judge in Chambers delivered </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
on 7 July 2021 setting aside an application for
injunctive relief.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
At the hearing, the appellant dropped grounds 1(v),
2, 3 and 5 out of the 7 </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
grounds of appeal. We, however, do not propose to
deal with the merits of the remaining </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
grounds of appeal for the reasons set out below.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
During the hearing, reference was made to 2 other
Judge in Chambers </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
applications as well as a “main case”. As a superior
Court of record, some disturbing </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
features have now come to our attention. In the
present case, the appellant (then </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
applicant) had applied in essence for an injunction
restraining and prohibiting the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
respondent from terminating the membership of the
appellant as a resource member of </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
the respondent (“the first application”). In the
judgment delivered on 7 July 2021, the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
learned Judge in Chambers upheld a preliminary
objection raised by the respondent and </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
set aside the first application with costs, hence
the present appeal.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
<br>
</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
2</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Subsequently, Court records reveal that the same
appellant lodged a series of </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
applications before different Judges sitting in
Chambers on 12 July, 13 July, </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
3 September, 6 September, 26 November, 1 December
and 3 December 2021. The </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
particulars of these applications and of the first
application have been set out in tabular </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
form in an annex to this judgment (Annex A).</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
From a reading of all these applications, it is
patently clear that the appellant was </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
in effect praying for the same remedy in all of
them, namely to restrain and prohibit the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
respondent from terminating the membership of the
appellant as a resource member of </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
the respondent. All the applications have been set
aside except for the ones lodged on </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
6 September 2021 and 3 December 2021.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
For the purposes of this appeal, the application
lodged on 3 December 2021 (“the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
last application”) is of particular interest. In
this application, the learned Judge in </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Chambers granted, ex parte, an interim order in the
following terms:-</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
“…. let an interim order in the nature of an
injunction issue, restraining and</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
prohibiting the respondent, either by itself, its
agent, representatives or </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
préposé from:</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
(i) acting in any manner whatsoever on or giving
effect to its Board </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Resolution of the 8th July 2021 or any similar Board
resolution or its </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
letter of the 1st December 2021 or any other similar
letter, in any </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
manner whatsoever, which has the effect of
terminating the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
membership of the applicant in the respondent as a
Resource </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Member; and</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
(ii) acting on or giving effect to its decision, in
any manner whatsoever, </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
which has the effect of breaching the Undertaking of
the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
15th July 2021 in application bearing Serial No.
1040/2021.”</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
The matter has now been made returnable to show
cause why the interim order </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
should not be made interlocutory “pending the
determination of the disputes between the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
parties”.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Learned Counsel for the appellant has invited us to
quash the judgment in the first </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
application and to remit it for consideration before
a different Judge. We are of the view </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
that this would serve no useful purpose and be a
waste of time and resources. In the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
light of the above, it is clear that the appellant
has already been granted interim injunctive </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
relief in wide terms in the last application but is
still insisting on proceeding with the first </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
application wherein it is in effect applying for the
same remedy. There is no raison d’être</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
<br>
</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
3</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
for the first application and hence for this appeal.
It is a matter of regret that, with regard </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
to their duty towards the Court, the legal advisers
did not deem it fit to apprise us of the </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
existence and particulars of the last application
where the appellant has, in the meantime, </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
been granted interim injunctive relief. We must also
express our concern at the number </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
of successive applications lodged by the appellant
against the respondent praying in </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
effect for the same remedy. It would seem that the
appellant is bent on having multiple </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
bites at the cherry.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
In these circumstances, contrary to what we were
told at the hearing, we are of </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
the view that, even if we were to allow the present
appeal, it would be academic and </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
serve no practical purpose. In this context, it is
apposite to the following dictum in </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
McNaughton v McNaughton’s Trs. (1953) SC 387, quoted
with approval in Planche v </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
The PSC [1993 SCJ 128]:-</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
“Our courts have consistently acted on the view that
it is their function in </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
the ordinary run of contentious litigation to decide
only live, practical </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
questions, and that they have no concern with
hypothetical, premature or </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
academic questions, nor do they exist to advise
litigants as to the policy </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
which they should adopt in the ordering of their
affairs. The courts are </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
neither a debating club nor an advisory bureau.”</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
We wish to add that, as far as we have been able to
ascertain, no main case has </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
been lodged by the appellant so far.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
For the above reasons, we are of the view that the
pursuance of this appeal would </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.
This appeal is accordingly set aside with </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
costs.</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
D. Chan Kan Cheong</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Judge</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
R. Teelock</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Judge</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
14 February 2022</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
<br>
</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
4</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Judgment delivered by Hon. D. Chan Kan Cheong, Judge</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
For Appellant : Mrs Y. Hurnaurn-Calcutteea
Attorney-at-Law,</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Mr N. S. Singla, Queen Counsel together with</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Mr R. Gulbul, of Counsel</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
For Respondent : Mr M. Mardemootoo, Senior Attorney</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Sir H. Moollan, Queen Counsel together with </div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Mr A. Radhakissoon, of Counsel</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Mr A. Adamjee, of Counsel</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Ms P. Gokhool, of Counsel</div>
<div style="line-height:1.92;text-align:justify;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">
Ms S. Chinien, of Counsel</div>
</div>
<div>[...]</div>
<div>~°~</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">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?</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>...it certainly started before, with more
friendly </div>
<div>interactions, as stated by the Bylaws in
section 8 </div>
<div>(8.2, 8.4 and 8.5) [1]: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>~°~</div>
<div>
<div>[...]</div>
<div>8) TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP</div>
<div>8.1) The membership of a Registered
Member shall terminate upon:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[...]</div>
<div>8.3) The membership of an Associate
Member shall terminate upon:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[...]</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>8.5) The Resource Member shall, on
termination of its membership, return the resources
allocated to it by the Company.</div>
<div>[...]</div>
</div>
<div>~°~</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the full litigation story, all court
cases are listed</div>
<div> here [2].</div>
<div>__</div>
<div>[1]: <<a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/1/U3rPsy8Y4t0Ldxgzg0DlIw/aHR0cHM6Ly9hZnJpbmljLm5ldC9ieWxhd3MjYjIwLTg#b20-8" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://afrinic.net/bylaws#b20-8</a>></div>
<div>[2]: <<a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/2/4x86zEeti6priM7PwqwmPA/aHR0cHM6Ly9hZnJpbmljLm5ldC9jb3VydC1jYXNlcw" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://afrinic.net/court-cases</a>></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks to: THE Almighty LORD, the Judges,
AfriNIC</div>
<div> Ltd and the whole Internet Community!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Blessings to y'all!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Shalom,</div>
<div>--sb.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Feb 15,
2022 at 3:53 PM AFRINIC Communication <<a href="mailto:comms@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">comms@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
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. <a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/3/a5kuihxz2Y2KkjsPmjXalQ/aHR0cHM6Ly9hZnJpbmljLm5ldC9hc3QvY2FzZTktanVkZ2VtZW50LnBkZg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://afrinic.net/ast/case9-judgement.pdf</a> <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
No doubt, this is an essential milestone for
AFRINIC, and we wish to thank the team and our
stakeholders for their continued support. <br>
<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Eddy Kayihura,<br>
Chief Executive Officer,<br>
African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC)<br>
<a href="mailto:ceo@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ceo@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
<br>
……………………………………………………………………………..<br>
<br>
[...]</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<p>Best Regards !<br>
__<br>
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<<a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/4/kvXM9DU3CTiFQiDEUtxoJw/aHR0cHM6Ly9jbW5vZy5jbS9kb2t1d2lraS9TdHJ1Y3R1cmU" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure</a>><br>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <<a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/5/KXyJeRSisBfssAMmQwrfGQ/aHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0cy5jbW5vZy5jbS9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2Ntbm9nLw" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/</a>><br>
__<br>
#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de
#Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!»<br>
#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau.
#Chrétiennement<br>
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi
mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)<br>
<br>
</p>
_______________________________________________<br>
Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/6/tZZqIi9M-tibO-ovrXNDhg/aHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0cy5hZnJpbmljLm5ldC9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2NvbW11bml0eS1kaXNjdXNz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/7/QzeWZsgPzePvfRn8PefFag/aHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0cy5hZnJpbmljLm5ldC9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2NvbW11bml0eS1kaXNjdXNz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/lnk/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/8/sihAPCQpz5iKVQNHaVtVSQ/aHR0cHM6Ly9saXN0cy5hZnJpbmljLm5ldC9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2NvbW11bml0eS1kaXNjdXNz" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
<br/><img src="https://0ms46.mjt.lu/oo/AMQAAL0vDs8AAAAAAAAAAACmxp4AAAAAE_8AAAAAABs8ugBiDKRTP8yziTFAT96loQJtLRFrAAAaKb0/b9de67c3/e.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" border="0" style="height:1px;width:1px;border:0;"/>