Summary

  • AFRINIC says Cloud Innovation Ltd’s name appeared on the Registrar of Companies’ Register of Registered Members on 9 October 2026; it says it became aware of the entry on 28 October.
  • The court tracker and a June 2025 court transcript record earlier removal steps, while the new statement page links no current register extract, October Rule, Legal Notice or Registrar response.

Four dates, one live dispute

The sharpest detail in AFRINIC’s 31 October statement is the gap between two dates. It says Cloud Innovation Ltd’s name was entered on the Register of Registered Members on 9 October, then says AFRINIC took cognisance of the appearance on 28 October. On 29 October, the court-appointed Receiver served a Legal Notice demanding immediate removal. The statement followed on 31 October.

That is a 19-day interval between the reported entry date and AFRINIC’s stated discovery. It is also a one-day interval between discovery and the Receiver’s demand. The dates describe AFRINIC’s account of events; they do not by themselves show the Registrar’s record or what the notice changed.

The register matters because the statement identifies it as the Register of Registered Members for purposes of AFRINIC’s Constitution, maintained by Mauritius’s Registrar of Companies and accessible through CBRIS. That is a corporate membership record. AFRINIC’s membership process page says approved resource membership is recorded in its WHOIS database. Those records answer different questions. A name on a company register does not, by itself, tell a reader what AFRINIC’s resource database says or what status a particular resource holder has there.

The new claim sits beside two older records. AFRINIC’s case tracker describes case SC/COM/MOT/000399/2025 as an application to rectify the classification of CIL as a Registered Member. It marks the outcome “Granted” and the case “Completed,” but links no order. In a separate case, the amended minutes of 19 June 2025 record counsel for AFRINIC and the Receiver telling the Court that the Receiver had done what was needed to remove CIL’s name from the Registrar’s register. The Court ordered a communiqué to report that information.

Those minutes preserve what counsel told the Court on that date. The tracker supplies a status label. Neither is a copy of the register on 9 October 2026. AFRINIC’s new statement adds another layer: it says an email referred to a Supreme Court Rule dated 9 October 2026, which AFRINIC understands to certify outcomes in two earlier proceedings and to omit the oral ruling of 19 June 2025. The statement itself does not attach that Rule.

The statement page also supplies neither the current CBRIS extract, the 29 October Legal Notice nor a Registrar reply; those documents would show the entry AFRINIC describes and what happened after the demand. Until then, the public trail is a sequence of attributed dates, a completed tracker row and a year-old court record—not a visible before-and-after register.

That gap is the story. A corporate register can become a gate to institutional status; once challenged, its credibility depends on a traceable change record. Publishing the relevant extract and response would let members compare the state register, AFRINIC’s own account and the court record without asking readers to choose which institution’s summary to trust.

The next record should carry the date

AFRINIC says it is engaging with the Registrar and will pursue legal and administrative remedies. The next useful update can be concrete: identify the register entry, show the document that authorised or recorded it, publish the notice and date of service, then record the Registrar’s response and any correction. Each item would narrow a different part of the gap.

For now, the source chain is the 31 October AFRINIC statement, the official case tracker, and the 19 June 2025 amended minutes. They document a fresh dispute over a register entry; they do not supply the current register page.