Mauritius Consent of General Partner of a Proposed Limited Partnership (Form S19(2)(9)/F LP)

Candidate selection

GOV-4918 ("GovSchema Standard Research"). The prior cycle (GOV-4911) authored the Limited Liability Partnership analogue of this form (mu/cbrd/limited-liability-partnership-consent-of-partner, Form LLP2) and disclosed six further CBRD companion/notice forms as confirmed-live, open backlog: LLP4 (Notice of Change in Registered Office), LLP5 (Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Liability Partnership), LLP8 (Application for removal of Limited Liability Partnership from Register), and their Limited Partnerships Act 2011 analogues — Consent of General Partner (LP), LP5 (Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Partnership), and LP7 (Notice of Change in Registered Particulars).

This cycle re-fetched CBRD's own downloadable-forms listing (https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/downloadable-forms/, HTTP 200) fresh and located all six disclosed links again, byte-verifying three of them directly:

• CONSENT-OF-GENERAL-PARTNER-LP.pdf — HTTP 200, 48,599 bytes, byte-identical to the GOV-4911 cycle's own disclosed estimate.
• NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-OF-NAME-OF-A-LIMITED-PARTNERSHIP_LP5.pdf — HTTP 200, 46,918 bytes, byte-identical to the prior disclosure.
• NOTICE-OF-CHANGE-IN-REGISTERED-PARTICULARS_LP7.pdf — HTTP 200, 47,636 bytes, byte-identical to the prior disclosure.

"Consent of General Partner" was picked as the direct Limited Partnerships Act 2011 analogue of the LLP2 form already authored last cycle: it is the first-named item in the disclosed backlog's LP-family list, of comparable size/simplicity to its LLP2 sibling (both single-page, ~48KB forms), and per this registry's own "one deliverable per PR" convention is well-scoped as its own schema rather than batched with the other five remaining companion forms.

Reaching the live source

https://companies.govmu.org/cbrd/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CONSENT-OF-GENERAL-PARTNER-LP.pdf

• Plain unauthenticated curl, no session/cookie state, no CAPTCHA/WAF challenge — same unauthenticated hosting pattern as every other CBRD form this registry has already modelled.
• HTTP 200, 48,599 bytes retrieved.
• sha256 of the retrieved bytes: 0bcafc20f00a278a4bdfc19ba941873e897e16e82e731557b931e2cd70d4aac6.
• 1 page, confirmed via pdfjs-dist's numPages.
• getAnnotations() returned 0 form-field annotations — not an interactive AcroForm, same as every sibling CBRD schema.
• getTextContent() returned 98 positioned text items — a genuine text layer, with every printed label and blank-line dot-leader run recovered cleanly, including exact (x, y) positions per item. No canvas render was needed: like its LLP2 sibling, this form has no checkbox or ruled-grid layout ambiguous enough to require visual confirmation — every field is a simple labelled blank line.

Authority attribution

The form's own header ("THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT 2011", "S 19(2)(9)") and its hosting directly on the Corporate and Business Registration Department's own domain (companies.govmu.org/cbrd/, the same authority already attributed on every other CBRD schema in this registry) attribute authority to the Corporate and Business Registration Department (abbreviation CBRD) directly.

Extraction method

A single positional text-layer dump (sorted by descending y-coordinate, then x) was sufficient to reconstruct the form's row structure. Items were grouped into visual rows using a 2-point y-tolerance — the same method already used on the LLP2 sibling.

Document structure

Page 1 (single page):

• Header/title: "FOR OFFICE USE" box (top right, with "S 19(2)(9)", "Document Folio", "Category", "Partnership No.") and "CONSENT OF GENERAL PARTNER" title, both officer-only or non-fillable — not modelled.
• Two disclosed-but-unmodelled boilerplate notes, in the same defective pattern already found on the LLP2 sibling: "If there is more than one director, please attach a separate sheet or sheets with the consent and certificate of the additional director or directors set out in the prescribed format." — a genuine finding, recurring across both CBRD "Consent" companion forms: Limited Partnerships have general partners and limited partners, never directors, under the Limited Partnerships Act 2011; this sentence is evidently boilerplate carried over unedited from a companies-registration consent-of-director template, identical in substance to the finding already disclosed on the LLP2 sibling's own VERIFICATION.md. It is immediately followed by a second, correctly-worded sentence: "If there is more than one General Partner, please attach a separate sheet or sheets with the consent of the additional General Partners set out in the approved format." Both are disclosed here rather than silently corrected or omitted; neither corresponds to any fillable field.
• Partnership/general-partner identification block: "Name of proposed Limited Partnership" (blank); "Full name of General Partner" (blank) paired on the same row with "BRN." (blank, right side, for a body-corporate general partner); "ID No." (blank, right side, for a natural-person general partner); "Full address" (blank). See generalPartnerBrn's own field description in schema.json for the mutually-exclusive-alternate rationale — the form prints no discriminator checkbox distinguishing a natural-person from a body-corporate general partner, same as the LLP2 sibling.
• Consent declaration: "I consent to act as General Partner of the above proposed Limited Partnership." (a static assertion, not a field to fill in) followed by "Date: ______" and "Signature: ______" on the same row.
• "Presented by:" block: "Name: ______" (two printed lines, modelled as one field), "Address: ______" (two printed lines, modelled as one field), "Reference: ______" (one line, optional — a filer's own internal reference, distinct from the Department's own office-use box).
• "(For office use)" box: "Officer's Name:", "Sig:", "Date:" — officer- only, not modelled.
• Footer: "Sheet ___ of ___ (for office use)" — officer-only, not modelled.

Conformance

No requiredWhen gates are used (the BRN/ID No. pair has no printed discriminator field to gate on, per this registry's own standing either/or-pair convention already used on the LLP2/LP2/Foundation siblings). An ephemeral, uncommitted Node script exercised:

• 2 valid scenarios: (a) a natural-person general partner supplying generalPartnerIdNo and omitting generalPartnerBrn, (b) a body-corporate general partner supplying generalPartnerBrn and omitting generalPartnerIdNo.
• 7 required-field-omission mutations (one per required field: nameOfProposedLimitedPartnership, generalPartnerFullName, generalPartnerFullAddress, declarationDate, signatureOfGeneralPartner, presentedByName, presentedByAddress) each independently rejected as expected.
• 1 unknown-field-rejection mutation, rejected as expected.

Both node tools/validate.mjs and node tools/validate-ajv.mjs pass against the full registry with this schema included.

Scope and disclosed backlog

This schema does not model any of the other companion/notice forms on the same downloadable-forms listing, re-verified this cycle:

• Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Partnership (LP5, 46,918 bytes, HTTP 200) and Notice of Change in Registered Particulars (LP7, 47,636 bytes, HTTP 200) — both confirmed live and byte-identical to the GOV-4911 cycle's own disclosure. Left open, disclosed backlog for future companion-schema cycles.
• Their Limited Liability Partnership Act 2016 analogues, previously disclosed and not re-fetched this cycle since already byte-verified last cycle: Notice of Change of Name of a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP5), Notice of Change in Registered Office (LLP4), Application for removal of Limited Liability Partnership from Register (LLP8). Left open, disclosed backlog.
• Consent of Manager (LLP2 sibling form) and Application for Removal of Limited Partnership from Register (LP4) remain the two genuine dead links (HTTP 404) on the Department's own hosting first disclosed on the GOV-4911 cycle, not re-tested this cycle. Left open, unscreened backlog for a future cycle in case the Department's own hosting is fixed or a mirror surfaces.

Full company incorporation itself remains out of scope (login-gated CBRIS portal, no static equivalent, per every prior CBRD schema's own disclosed scope).