Tamarina Rules Reference

Every rule that anyone at Tamarina invokes falls into one of five tiers. A court asked to enforce a rule — or to strike down a demand — will place it in its tier first and only then read its content. The tier decides who may make the rule, by what majority, and what the sanction can be.

The one sentence to remember

“I comply with the Cahier des Charges” is a complete answer to Tier V and to most of Tier IV. It is not a complete answer to Tier III: a decision the Assembly validly took and nobody contested in time is binding even if one disagrees with it, and even if it goes further than the Cahier. The real question, decision by decision, is always: was this adopted at the majority the law requires for a rule of that kind, and did anyone challenge it within two months? Part 4 applies that test to every rule-making resolution since 2006.

Instrument. Not a standalone booklet: it is the « DEUXIÈME PARTIE — ARTICLE 1 CAHIER DES CHARGES — ASSOCIATION SYNDICALE » and « ARTICLE 3 — STATUTS » of every original sale by Tamarina Golf Estate Company Limited, holder of the IRS certificate (BOI, 2 March 2005). The vendor « a décidé de se prévaloir des dispositions de l'Article 664-95 du Code Napoléon » (1978 numbering; today art. 664-119 ff.).

How it binds. Real and perpetual servitudes, each lot dominant and servient of every other; art. 1.1 « opposable à quiconque possède ou occupe, à bon droit ou sans titre, un Lot »; art. 1.2.1 automatic membership of the Association; art. 1.22 every later deed must reproduce it or record the buyer's adhesion. The 2020 deed for Lot 41 does exactly that and adds nothing else.

Sanction. The preamble excludes damages as the remedy and excludes the judge's discretion: « entraînera pour le contrevenant non pas des dommages et intérêts mais la remise en état ou en conformité des choses et dans le cas d'ouvrages et de constructions érigés en contravention … la destruction de ceux-ci … la faculté conférée aux Juges d'apprécier souverainement si l'exécution en nature peut être accordée au créancier étant supprimée ». Art. 1.10: breaches « peuvent … entraîner des poursuites judiciaires par l'Association contre les propriétaires contrevenants ». That is the whole sanction apparatus: court action for restoration. No fine, no penalty schedule, no disciplinary committee exists in the text (“amende”: 0 occurrences).

Amendment. Art. 1.1.1: « Toute addition ainsi que toute modification au présent Cahier des Charges ne pourront être apportées que par l'Assemblée Générale … dans les conditions prévues par les lois en vigueur … Quant aux Servitudes elles ne peuvent être modifiées ou supprimées que par une décision prise à la majorité d'au moins soixante quinze pour cent des voix de tous les membres de l'Association. » — 90 of 119 votes for servitudes; for the rest, the legal majority, now two-thirds of all votes (664-122), i.e. 80 of 119. Three amendments were adopted and deposited (2006, 2006, 2009); their content is not in the archive (Part 8).

What the Cahier des Charges does not contain

No plot ratio, height, setback or fence figures (only announced in the preamble — the 2009 architect procedure refers to the “concept architectural du lotissement”, not to a numbered guide); no fines, penalty schedule, disciplinary committee or “Rules and Discipline Committee”; no règlement intérieur or handbook, nor any power to adopt one with binding force; no security procedures, access-card regime or gate protocol (only the staff-name register, 1.13 a); no water rationing or consumption rule (water appears only for hiding tanks, underground connections, not obstructing drains); no rental restriction; no pet registration, quota or removal order (only 1.4.2); no speed limit; no contractor hours; no tree-felling permit; no tantièmes — charges are split « dans une égale proportion », one lot one share; no email notice; no quorum figure; no power to cut services or bar access to a defaulter; no obligation to use the Association's insurer, gardener or contractor.

What the 2009 amendment adds — and its limits. Since 1 December 2009 the Cahier does contain a works-approval procedure through an architect designated by the syndic, an appeal to the Assembly at simple majority, and a power for the syndic to inspect and stop non-compliant works. It does not name the architect (successive appointments by the Assembly: Nicolas Paturau, 2009; the original architect Giraud for the 2014 colour palette; Studio Three, 20 November 2020, 64 for / 0 against; Studio Linear, 25 May 2023, 70 for / 1 against), does not fix fees, deadlines or drawing formats (those come from the architects' engagement letters and from Handbook §14 / Guidelines §4, which are administrative), and does not create fines: non-compliance leads to a stop of the works and, ultimately, to the court action of 1.10 / 664-121 for restoration.

Which text applies. Two versions circulate in the estate's own documents and this causes constant mis-citation. The 1978 regime (Act 37 of 1978) had only two articles for subdivisions, 664-95 and 664-96, and sent everything else to the co-ownership rules by cross-reference — that is the numbering the 2005 Cahier des Charges uses (664-34 → 664-37, 664-55, 664-60). The Code Civil Mauricien (Amendment) Act of 2018 replaced the whole section and created a dedicated one, Section Première-AA, “Des ensembles immobiliers”, art. 664-119 → 664-140, with a new vocabulary: association foncière, administrateur, conseil des membres. The 2020 deed for Lot 41 already cites art. 664-120; the administrator's own emails and the 2020 draft statutes cite 664-122 to 664-133. That is the law in force. In it, 664-89 is “Surélévation” and 664-91 is “Reconstruction” — documents citing them for the two-month delay or the Judge in Chambers are using the old numbering.

Mandatory character. 664-139: « Sauf mention contraire, les dispositions de la Section Première – A et de la Section Première – AA sont impératives. » 664-140: existing estates had five years from promulgation to bring themselves into conformity, the conformity decision being taken at simple majority or by the Judge in Chambers — this is what the 2020 notarial draft statutes and the December 2025 resolution 8 are about.

Twenty-two meetings and 207 recorded resolutions between April 2006 and February 2026 were reviewed (database plus every minute available in the archive). The vast majority are management: accounts, budgets, elections, contracts. The table keeps only decisions that impose a rule or obligation on owners or change the estate's governance, and applies the majority test of Part 1.

The thresholds, as the estate's own minutes and instruments state them. Simple majority of those present for management (Statutes; 664-130 al. 5). Two-thirds of all votes for anything that amends the Cahier des Charges (664-122 → 664-37: 80 of 119). Seventy-five per cent of all members for servitudes (Cahier art. 1.1.1: 90 of 119). The administrator himself has applied “2/3 absolue” as two-thirds of 119 when it produced a rejection (36 votes in July 2025, 43 in May 2025) and treated 57 votes as sufficient in December 2025.

Never adopted by any Assembly, 2006 → 2026

• The Residents' Handbook (2015) or any règlement intérieur — proposed once (2018, “100 % required”), not voted; mandated for redrafting (2022, 2023), never brought back.
• Any fine, penalty or disciplinary sanction — the single proposal (water, Rs 500/m³, Nov 2024) was withdrawn by the administrator for “legal issues, especially penalties”.
• Any rule on water tanks, pets, occupancy, short-term rentals, speed limits, drones, alarms, staff hours, access cards or a mandatory app.
• Late-payment interest at “prime + 3 %”, a lump-sum penalty, or the 5 % direct-debit rebate.

Contestations on record

Villa 41's written objections to the AGM of 22 November 2024 (January 2025: email convocation “never approved in a General Assembly … null and void”), the request for an EGM of 19 June 2025, resolution 6 of December 2025, and the February 2026 emails on the two contradictory sets of minutes were all made in writing and none was followed by a filing before the Judge in Chambers. Under 664-131 every decision listed above is now beyond the two-month window. That is the practical meaning of “contestable” in the table: a legal argument that exists on paper, not a live remedy — except for future decisions taken the same way.

The Handbook (2015 edition; 2023 French draft, unadopted)

Cover: “This handbook is issued by the ASSOCIATION SYNDICALE OF TAMARINA GOLF ESTATE & BEACH CLUB to each registered owner.” It never cites the Cahier des Charges (0 occurrences), never cites the Civil Code, and cites no Assembly resolution adopting it. Its only stated source of authority is §2.1.2: the Council is “to … Make rules to regulate the conduct of members to the benefit of all and impose financial penalties for non-compliance” — a power the Statutes do not give a Council they define as consultative, and which the Cahier (art. 1.1.1) reserves to the Assembly.

The 2023 French draft (Word file, 20 October 2023, prepared for Feel Free) carries 21 unresolved reviewer comments by Feel Free's own General Manager (“ELCdB”) and site manager. Three are decisive:

The Architectural Guide (Studio Linear, 2023 → adopted “for note” 18 December 2025)

Trajectory: mandate November 2022 (76-0-0, expressly “for vote at an EGM and inclusion in the Cahier des Charges”); Studio Linear appointed May 2023 (Rs 310,000); draft presented May 2024 — the architect: “the aim was not to dictate … but only to guide the home owners with regard to the Cahier des Charges … if they were not approved, the Cahier des Charges would remain unchanged”; the administrator: the legal vote required “2/3 absolute majority”; November 2024 “only informative, no vote”; 18 December 2025, resolution 14, “take note of the new proposed architectural guide”, 55 for / 1 against / 1 abstention, “simple majority”, one sentence on page 23 deleted in session after an owner recalled that “two years back it had been decided that the owners were free to choose”.

The draft's own disclaimer states that “the legally binding version of this document is in fact” the two documents deposited with the notary. It limits shingles to three models, fixes paint references, gates and fences, sets 25 % plot coverage, single storey, setbacks of 3 m / 2 m / 2 m, a 45° roof pitch, working hours 7:30–17:00, and the water-tank clause quoted above. Every one of those is an art. 1.16 / 1.18 matter — a servitude under the Cahier's own clause (90 votes) and an amendment of the Cahier under the Code (80 votes, notarial deed, transcription). It received 55 votes and no notarial act. Its sanction clause is “a report … to the Building Council for non-compliance & possible disciplinary measures” — undefined. After adoption it was never circulated to owners and never invoked, not even in the tank request of 23 February 2026.

Assessment: a useful statement of what the estate would like; binding only where it restates art. 1.16 and 1.18. The right way to make it binding is known to everyone involved — the Assembly said so itself in November 2022.

Every rule, request or sanction addressed to owners that could be found in the syndic's bulk emails (Sygeco, Feel Free, Citya, via Vilogi), the Council's letters, and the correspondence with Villa 41, with the legal basis the sender actually invoked. Two facts frame the table: no administrator has ever served a formal notice (mise en demeure) or bailiff's act on any Tamarina owner for a conduct breach in the period reviewed, and no fine or late-payment penalty has ever been invoiced — Villa 41's 2025–26 statements carry none.

Each answer gives the rule that actually applies, the tier it comes from, and what a formal enforcement would have to look like. “Owner” means any owner; nothing here is specific to one villa.

…remove or lower a water tank because it is “too visible from the road”

Cahier art. 1.18 i applies — and it is a servitude.

« Les réservoirs et/ou chauffe-eau solaires … ne doivent pas être visibles d'un autre lot ou des voies de dessertes ». The obligation is concealment, not removal; a screened, recessed or lowered tank satisfies it. The Handbook's “approval subject to available water supply” and the Guide's tank clause add nothing binding. Enforcement would be the Association's court action for conformity (1.10; 664-121), preceded in practice by a written notice — neither has ever been issued to any owner. Selective enforcement against one villa while identical installations stand elsewhere is a defence on the merits (abuse of right), not a defence to the servitude itself.

…obtain approval before works, or stop works in progress

Yes — for “modifications to villas and additional constructions”, the Cahier des Charges itself (art. 1.16 c as amended on 2 May 2009, deposited 1 December 2009) requires a dossier filed with the syndic and validated by the architect the syndic designates, before the building permit and before works start.

The procedure is in Part 2. Its key features: the architect checks conformity with the “concept architectural du lotissement”; if he refuses, the owner may take the dossier to the next General Assembly, which decides at a simple majority of those present; the syndic « aura toute autorité pour vérifier les travaux à tout moment, et pourra prendre les mesures nécessaires pour les stopper si nécessaire en cas de non-conformité ». The amendment was adopted with 101 of 119 votes — above the 90 the Cahier requires for a servitude — and every buyer since, including the buyer of Lot 41 in 2020, has adhered to it in his deed. It binds.

What it does not do: it does not reach works that 1.16 never governed — interior works and like-for-like maintenance that leave the exterior unchanged (though the annex's preamble speaks of “un véritable contrôle de tous les travaux”, so anything visible from outside is safest filed); it does not let the architect or the syndic refuse arbitrarily (the Assembly is the appeal); it does not create fees, formats or deadlines (those are in the architects' engagement letters and Handbook §14 / Guidelines §4 — administrative, but following them is the practical way to get the validation); and it does not create fines. A stop order is the syndic's act, to be given in writing with the non-conformity identified — not an employee's on-site threat. The current designated architect is Studio Linear (Claire Fayolle), appointed by the AGE of 25 May 2023. On what the estate's twenty years of non-enforcement do and do not change, see Part 8.

…raise or alter a boundary wall

Front wall: it is the Association's, not yours — only the Assembly can decide. Side wall: shared with the neighbour; you may raise it at your cost (C. civ. art. 658), but the architect's file is still required and the neighbour may sue. A neighbour's unpunished precedent gives you no right.

Details, ownership table and case law in Part 8.6. The safe sequence for a side wall: file with Studio Linear (about Rs 6,900, two weeks), obtain the neighbour's written agreement, then the building permit. For the front wall, a request to the Council to put it on the next Assembly's agenda as a common-parts work, at the requesting owner's cost — the November 2024 noise-wall vote is the template.

…pay a fine (garden waste, speeding, pets, anything)

No fine exists. None can be created except by a Cahier-level Assembly vote.

Neither the Cahier, the Statutes nor the Code confers a fine power on the Association, the Council or the administrator; the only proposed fine (water, 2024) was withdrawn as legally unsafe; the syndic's own manager wrote that the Handbook's Rs 2,000 fines are “not mentioned in your cahier des charges” and would need a 2/3 Assembly vote. A penalty clause could be inserted into the Cahier at the 664-122 majority and by notarial deed — that has never been done.

…pay interest, a late-payment penalty, or lose the 5 % rebate

Interest at the legal civil rate from a formal demand (Statutes → 664-60 of the 1978 text); nothing else.

“Prime + 3 %” and the lump sum are Handbook inventions never applied; the 5 % rebate rests on a Council recommendation. Real consequences of arrears are: privilege and legal mortgage (664-133), opposition to the price on a sale (1.25), and loss of vote after one year (664-129) — the last was applied at Ocean Drive, not yet at Tamarina.

…pay a levy increase voted by 43 owners out of 119

Yes. Budgets are ordinary decisions, binding on all once uncontested.

Statutes: « Ces décisions obligent l'universalité des propriétaires ». The May 2025 budget (+15 %) was adopted 43-0-0 and not challenged within two months. Refusing to pay it exposes the owner to interest, mortgage and loss of vote; the correct route was — and for the next budget will be — a challenge within two months for abuse of majority (664-130 al. 6) or irregular convening.

…accept an Assembly convocation by email

The Statutes still say registered letter or hand delivery. The December 2025 “amendment” got 57 votes; the Code needs 80. But 664-117 allows electronic notice unless a third of members object.

Practically: the argument that an email-convened meeting is void was raised in writing in January 2025 and never filed; every meeting since is beyond the two-month window. For a future meeting the objection must be filed, not emailed, within two months — and it will collide with 664-117 unless 40 owners have objected to electronic notice.

…comply with the Architectural Guide (three shingle models, paint references, fences, 25 % coverage)

Binding only where it restates the Cahier (no change of colour or materials, no additional buildings, concealed equipment).

The figures and the shortlist of materials are new servitudes; they needed 90 votes under the Cahier (1.1.1) or 80 under the Code (664-122) plus a notarial deed, and got 55 “for note”. They can be treated as recommendations. An owner who follows them is safe; an owner who follows the Cahier but not the Guide can only be sued under the Cahier.

…comply with the Handbook (occupancy cap, two dogs, no staff overnight, cart-only, alarm linked to security, appointed estate agency, name-plate approval)

No. None of these was ever adopted; several are contradicted by the Cahier (full circulation rights, art. 1.9).

What does bind, because the Cahier says it: residential use only, no nuisance animals, leash on common areas, laundry hidden, refuse conditions set by the Association, names of employees given to the Association, no parking off the roadway or over 24 h, notify the Association of any occupant or tenant during absence (1.31).

…register my staff, carry an access card, use the app

Give the names of employees (1.13 a): yes. Cards, logs and apps: procedure, not obligation.

The Association may organise access control as part of its guarding mandate, and an owner who refuses all identification will find the gate closed to his contractors. But no instrument makes a paid card, a staff log or registration on My Estate Life a condition of anything, and no Assembly has voted one. For the app, the Association is the data controller in law and owes owners the information required by the Data Protection Act 2017 before collection.

…stop using a petrol leaf blower, or keep contractors to 7:30–17:00

These two were actually voted (2017, 62-29; 2020, 63-1-1).

Both regulate private lots at a simple majority and would have been contestable as Cahier-level rules — in 2017 and 2020. They were not contested; today they are the estate's rules. The 06:00 gate hours circulated in 2025 were never voted and remain a request.

…let my villa short-term

The Cahier does not restrict letting; the RES Regulations 2007 (s. 23) do: letting only through the IRS company or a designated property manager.

Cahier duties: inform the tenant of the Cahier and obtain his commitment (1.29), remain liable for him (1.30), notify the Association of the occupant's name in writing (1.31). Hotels and pensions de famille are forbidden (1.4.1). The Handbook's clearance certificate for leases and “Appointed Estate Agency” have no basis.

…accept that the Council removed its president by a vote among themselves

The Council may do that. The Statutes say so in terms.

« Le Conseil Syndical élit un Président parmi ses membres, à la majorité de ceux-ci … sauf révocation prononcée à la même majorité »; the Code (664-132) and the 2020 draft statutes (art. 24) repeat it. What was irregular on 1 November 2024 was the form — an item not on the notified agenda, a meeting led by the syndic who under the Statutes may not chair and whose advice the Council is free to ignore — not the power. A Council member, as opposed to the president, can be removed only by the Assembly at the majority used for election.

…accept a Council of five members, when the 2018 Code speaks of “three to eleven”

Five is lawful. The 2005 Statutes fix five (odd, within the 664-132 range of three to eleven, one-year term, substitutes allowed); nothing in the Code overrides that clause, and the 2005 Statutes remain in force until new ones are adopted by notarial deed (664-126, 664-140).

The 2018 Act did not void existing statutes: art. 664-140 gives existing estates five years to conform, by a simple-majority decision or the Judge in Chambers, and the Act's consequential clause simply renames the existing association syndicale an association foncière. Only clauses contrary to the mandatory provisions (664-139) are displaced. The deviation from the Statutes was the election of seven members in December 2023, not the return to five in November 2024 — and the return was voted by the Assembly (five seats, two substitutes), not decided by the syndic or the Council. Changing the number requires an amendment of the Statutes; the 2020 draft (odd number three to eleven, three-year term) has never been adopted. A substitute sits only on a vacancy and has no right to attend Council meetings.

…as a substitute member, attend Council meetings or receive its minutes

No right to attend; a right to the minutes. The Statutes copy art. 25 of the French decree of 1967: a substitute “siège … en cas de cessation définitive des fonctions des membres titulaires” — on a definitive vacancy, in order of election, for the remainder of the replaced member's term. Nothing gives a substitute a seat, a convocation or access to the syndic's papers before that. But the Statutes also say: “Copies de ces procès-verbaux sont délivrées par le Président du Conseil Syndical, sur demande qui lui en est faite par les propriétaires” — any owner may ask the president for copies of Council minutes.

A prolonged absence of a member (illness, ten months abroad) is not a vacancy; the seat stays filled and the substitute does not step up (Cass. 3e civ., 6 Oct. 2010, no. 09-15.248: a vacancy does not end the other members' mandate; the Assembly fills only the vacant seats). The Council may nevertheless invite a substitute as an observer without a vote — a matter for the president or a règlement intérieur, never an obligation (Service-public F11384; the 2018 Code, 664-132, is silent). Tamarina's own record: no substitute was ever elected before 2019; in 2019 the first-ranked substitute took a seat on a vacancy; from December 2020 to October 2022 a substitute (Mrs Fregona, then Mr Crockett) attended every Council meeting and signed the minutes as “Membre Suppléant” — neither had been elected substitute by an Assembly; since November 2024 the two substitutes actually elected by the Assembly (35 and 15 votes) have not appeared in any minutes, and the December 2025 “reconduction” of the five members did not mention them — their current status is unclear until the minutes of the May 2026 Assembly are seen.

…attend every Council meeting once elected, or explain absences

There is no legal duty of attendance and no automatic sanction. The only remedies are removal by the Assembly at the majority used for election (Statutes), resignation, or non-re-election.

A Council member is an unpaid mandatary (Statutes; C. civ. art. 1992: a gratuitous mandatary answers only for faults “of a certain gravity” — Cass. 3e civ., 29 Nov. 2018, no. 17-27.766). The Statutes allow decisions with half the members “présents ou représentés” and written consultation, so an absent member can still take part. Clauses deeming a member resigned after three unexcused absences exist in French practice but are contractual and untested in cassation ⚠; the 2021 draft règlement intérieur of the Council (“chaque membre doit lui-même être présent aux réunions”) was never adopted. A Council remains validly constituted until more than half its seats are definitively vacant.

…contest a decision I think was adopted at the wrong majority

File before the Judge in Chambers within two months of learning of the decision (664-131). Emails, reservations and letters do not stop the clock.

Grounds that exist on these facts: insufficient majority for a Cahier-level rule (664-122); item not on the agenda; abuse of majority (664-130 al. 6); no notarial act for a purported amendment (664-120). A decision that was neither notarised nor transcribed may also be argued not to bind successors in title — a point for counsel. For debts, actions prescribe after five years.

…see the accounts, contracts and Council minutes

The Cahier and Code give the Council — not each owner — a general right of access; owners receive the documents attached to each convocation and may inspect the minutes register.

Statutes: Council members may inspect all documents at the syndic's office and the Council reports annually; an owner can ask the Council to exercise that right, or obtain a Council seat. The administrator must report to the Council at least quarterly (664-128). Five owners can force an Assembly on any question by registered letter (Statutes).

Part 2 established that the Cahier des Charges, as amended in 2009, requires an architect's validation for exterior changes and gives the syndic the power to stop non-compliant works. This Part answers the question that follows: given that the rule has almost never been enforced, can the syndic or the Assembly still act against one owner — and how free is an owner in the meantime? It draws on the estate's own record and on case law. Mauritian property law is of French origin and the Supreme Court treats French case law as persuasive authority (The Queen v L'Étendry, 1953 MR 15); the 2018 Code provisions quoted below were, for the most part, a codification of French law as it stood before 2022. Points marked ⚠ need confirmation by Mauritian counsel.

8.1 The record: a rule that has never been enforced to the end

• 2005–2009. “Nearly 70 owners have … done modification works in breach of the Cahier des Charges”; warning letters “remain without effect”. The AG of 2 May 2009 (101 votes) regularised the existing works in the same resolution that created the architect procedure — Medine's representative said so a year later: the works “have now been accepted through to decision voted in the AGM” (Council, 8 June 2010).
• 2009–2011, the “mise en conformité” campaign. The architect Paturau proposed a procedure; the Council found his fees too high (23 October 2009); no later minute records a single file processed. The only surviving individual report (Villa 95, May 2010, revised 2015) approves a pavilion, a side wall, a gazebo and a shower after the fact, and asks only for a metal gate to be removed.
• Demolitions or restorations actually carried out, 2005–2026: none on record. Architect refusals taken to an Assembly: none.
• Villa 37 (the temple). Built without any request (“We never send any request letter to Tamarina Syndic”, owner's email of 21 May 2020); pulling-down notice from the District Council; Sygeco's notice of 15 October 2020 (“beyond the scope of the Syndic's authority to give … retroactive consent” — while proposing an Areca screen as a “temporary solution”); legal action authorised by the AGM of 20 November 2020, 55 for / 7 against / 3 abstentions; then nothing in five years of minutes — no lawyer instructed, no budget, no line. The owner has attended every Assembly since and led the CWA delegation of July 2026.
• Other known breaches, no follow-up. Villa 22, side wall raised (Council 18 January 2024: “compliance letter” requested, nothing after); Villa 90, garage (Council 3 February 2025: “Non-Conformity Notice … requiring the demolition” requested, nothing in April, September or at the December AGM); Villa 102, boundary wall built on the drain (AGM 18 December 2025: cited as the cause of flooding of the treatment plant; no restoration requested); villas 14, 16, 17, 19, 29, 32, 40, 53, 95, 116, 118, 119 (fences, colours, a 5 m antenna, a tin roof, an aviary, bamboo shingles): remarks, sometimes a letter, never an action. Conversely, Villa 12's fence was approved in 2025 and Villa 17 was left to obtain “retrospective consents” with the Council “not getting involved” (2019).
• Archives. “All archives from the different Administrators had been lost”; “only about 20 % were handed over”; the resolution to recover the Sygeco archives was rejected 7–73 (AGM 22 November 2024). The administrator does not know what was authorised (“will find out if the flat roofs for the pavilions were authorized by the previous consulting architect”, October 2022). Owners' plan files handed over in 2023: four villas (17, 59, 66, 99). Architect's invoices 2020–2023: three, all dated 18 May 2022 (villas 5, 66, 99, Rs 6,900 each). Studio Three, appointed in 2020, never operated (“not a registered architect on the island”, EGM April 2022). The estate-wide non-conformity audit announced in 2020 was never produced.
• Retroactive consent has been refused in writing (2020) and granted in writing (2010, 2015) and collectively by vote (2009).

8.2 What tolerance does not do

It does not extinguish the rule. Waiver of a right is never presumed. For a subdivision the Cour de cassation goes further: the lots being “reciprocally dominant and servient”, even two neighbours cannot, between themselves, waive a servitude of the cahier des charges (Cass. 3e civ., 27 Sept. 1983, no. 82-11.175). The syndic's inaction does even less. The argument that the servitude lapsed through thirty years of non-use fails where the action targets the new construction (Cass. 3e civ., 26 Feb. 2013, no. 12-13.261). No Cour de cassation decision was found holding that a clause has fallen into desuetude because others breached it ⚠. In Mauritius the text is stricter still — art. 664-121: real servitudes “dont la violation est toujours sanctionnée par la démolition ou la mise en conformité”, enforceable “tant par l'administrateur que par chaque membre”. Any member may sue alone, without a vote and without the syndic. At Tamarina that is the real exposure: not an administrator that has never completed an action in twenty years, but a neighbour.

It creates no right for the next owner. A neighbour's raised wall authorises nothing. It produces two things only: for that wall, the starting point of extinction by “contrary act” after thirty years (C. civ. arts 706–707; Cass. 3e civ., 26 Oct. 2023, no. 22-13.910 — effect confined to the lot concerned); and, for anyone later singled out, an element of disproportion and abuse.

It does not relieve the owner of proof. The owner who relies on an authorisation must produce it (C. civ. art. 1353; Cass. 3e civ., 9 May 2019, no. 18-13.670). Lost archives hurt first the owner who was authorised and kept no copy. Keep every written word from the architect or the syndic.

8.3 What tolerance really does

Limitation. An action to demolish a construction breaching a real charge of the cahier des charges is a real action, thirty years (Cass. 3e civ., 6 Apr. 2022, no. 21-13.891), running from the day the claimant “knew or ought to have known”. No modification at Tamarina is thirty years old. Whether art. 664-131 al. 2 (“les actions liées au fonctionnement de l'association foncière se prescrivent par cinq ans”) reaches an action under 664-121 is open ⚠ — probably not, being a real action rather than a matter of “functioning”; a defendant will argue otherwise, and it is worth raising for any work older than five years.

8.4 The owner's freedom against the Assembly's power

Three tiers, from most to least protected:

1. Untouchable at any majority. Art. 664-39 (verbatim copy of art. 26 al. 2 of the French Act of 1965): “L'assemblée générale ne peut, à quelque majorité que ce soit, imposer à un copropriétaire une modification à la destination de ses parties privatives ou aux modalités de leur jouissance”; and 664-122: the destination of the complex or of a sector changes only by unanimity. Nobody can impose an occupancy cap, a pet quota, a “cart-only” estate, an appointed agency or a mandatory supplier.
2. Amendable — but only by two-thirds of all votes and by notarial deed (664-122 → 664-37; 664-120 al. 3). This is the tier of appearance rules: colours, materials, fences, wall heights, tanks, solar panels. French law upholds harmony clauses when justified by the destination (Act 1965 art. 8; Cass. 3e civ., 22 Mar. 2018, no. 17-13.867). The 2009 amendment (75 %) passed this bar; nothing since: the 2014 palette (63 votes), the 2025 guide (55 votes, “take note”), the wall heights of the 2024 draft (side 2.3 m, front 1–1.5 m, rear 1 m) have no Cahier force.
3. Ordinary management, simple majority — budgets, contracts, elections, common works. Binding as soon as adopted and uncontested (Statutes: “obligent l'universalité des propriétaires”).

The disproportion an owner feels is real but located: it comes from tier-2 rules adopted with tier-3 majorities and then presented as mandatory. The test for every demand is the same — which majority, which notarial act? If the answer is “55 votes, no act”, the demand is a recommendation.

8.5 Practical grid: without authorisation / with a file / never

8.6 The boundary walls — who owns what, and what follows

Per the owner's title and plan (to be confirmed against the plan parcellaire and the deed of transfer of common parts of 28 August 2009, which conveyed to the Association the road reserves, the “emprises” of the infrastructure and the “espaces libres”): the front (roadside) wall belongs to the Association; the side walls are shared between the two adjoining owners (mitoyens); the rear, golf-side boundary is a fence on the lot. Three different regimes follow.

On the question actually asked — “a neighbour raised his wall, the Association did nothing, so I can raise mine”: no. For the front wall the owner has no power at all; for a side wall the power exists (art. 658) but the file with the architect and the neighbour's agreement are what make it safe. The neighbour's precedent is a political argument for the Assembly, not a legal one for the judge.

8.7 If the syndic or an owner acts — the order of defences

1. Against the Assembly's resolution (where the syndic acts): challenge within two months of knowledge (664-131) for abuse of majority (664-130 in fine) — selectivity, refusal to rebuild the archives, no audit, the Villa 37 / 90 / 102 precedents; and for want of a specific mandate (Tourelle Ocean View).
2. On proof: produce any authorisation or exchange with the architect or syndic; failing that, have it recorded that the Association can establish neither the absence of authorisation nor equality of treatment.
3. On the rule invoked: verify that it is in the notarial Cahier or the 2009 amendment — not in the Handbook, the 2025 guide or an email (Part 5). No enforceable figure for a wall height exists anywhere.
4. On the sanction: ask for mise en conformité rather than demolition (664-121 alternative; 2022–2026 case law), weighing cost, the general state of the estate and the absence of concrete harm.
5. On time: raise the five years of 664-131 for any old work ⚠, without relying on it.

1. Missing pages of the Cahier des Charges. The only French copy in the archive (Lot 19 expedition, 33 scanned pages) physically lacks printed pages 22, 25 and 26: art. 1.18 (vi)–(vii), 1.19, 1.20, 1.26–1.32 and Article 2 exist only in an English “reference copy for information only”, which also mis-numbers one article. For any formal use, obtain the transcribed title (Vol. 5986 No. 17 or TV 6239/60) from the Registrar-General or Me Montocchio's study.
2. Content of the three deposited amendments. The 2009 one (AG 02/05/2009, deposited 01/12/2009, Vol. 7573 No. 17) is now known: it amended art. 1.16 c and introduced the architect procedure of Annexe 3 (Part 2). The two of 2006 (AG 17/04/2006, Reg. A 693 No. 1778 — kiosks for type E/EE villas, “adopted” with 32 present against a stated 90 required; AG 16/06/2006, Reg. A 698 No. 1767) are not in the archive. The English reference copy shows small differences from the 2005 French text (tank clause “must be hidden and never visible”; refuse enclosure; boards; removal of the pavilion exception in 1.16 c) that may come from them.
3. The 2018 Act. The text used here is the Bill (No. XIII of 2018) as introduced, the only copy in the archive. The Act as passed, its number, its proclamation date and any later amendment should be checked; the 2020 deed's citation of art. 664-120 confirms the regime was in force by then. Whether 664-116 (Judge in Chambers) extends by its terms to associations foncières is a question of construction.
4. Two majority rules for the same act. The Cahier requires 75 % of all members for servitudes; the Code (mandatory) requires two-thirds of all votes to amend the Cahier. Whether a stricter contractual threshold survives 664-139 is for counsel. On every vote since 2012 the answer does not matter: none reached 80.
5. Resolution 20 of November 2020 and resolution 8 of December 2025 (new Statutes / conformity with the 2018 Act): no transcribed notarial act has been seen. Until one exists, the 2005 Statutes are the ones in force, and the 2020 draft statutes are a draft.
6. Attendance counts. The administrator admitted in writing (10 February 2026) that the AGM of 18 December 2025 had 56 present or represented, not 57; two versions of the May 2025 minutes record resolution 3 differently; the database compiled from the minutes contains several mis-recorded results (e.g. November 2024 resolution 19 stored as adopted 2-0-78). Vote figures in Part 4 were re-read from the minutes themselves.
7. No minutes for the EGM of 18 October 2024 (drains), the AG of 21 May 2026 and the AGE of 25 June 2026 are in the archive; any rule adopted there is outside this compilation.
8. Handbook page references in the “Inside Rules” email of 2 April 2024 (art. 14.4 p. 28, art. 15 p. 29) match the unadopted 2023 draft, not the 2015 edition.
9. Ocean Drive (a copropriété, Section A of the Code) is governed by different articles; nothing in this document transfers to it, including the vote-suspension mechanism the administrator applied there.