K. Male'
|
15 May 2019 | Wed 16:06
Attorney General, Ibrahim Riffath
Attorney General, Ibrahim Riffath
Mohamed Sharuhaan
Dheebaajaa Investment
State seeks to halt enforcement of order, in Dheebaajaa case
The Ministry of Economics contracted Dheebaajaa Investments to provide ferry services to four atolls in the Northern Province, during former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration in 2010
However, the agreement was annulled in 2013, during the presidency of Mohamed Waheed

The state has asked the Civil Court to overturn the enforcement of the order to pay MVR 348 million to Dheebaajaa Investments.

The Ministry of Economics contracted Dheebaajaa Investments to provide ferry services to four atolls in the Northern Province, during former President Mohamed Nasheed’s administration in 2010. However, the agreement was annulled in 2013, during the presidency of Mohamed Waheed.

While a case was filed at the Civil Court, it ruled for the state to pay MVR 348 million to the company, on 23 October 2014. The order was appealed at the High Court on 17 May 2015, who overturned the lower court order on 26 June 2018.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Court verdict on 17 April 2019, noting that the High Court appeal was made “after the specified deadline.”

Following the order, Civil Court began work to make the state pay the amount and a hearing was held on Monday.

A statement released by the Attorney General’s Office on Tuesday, notes that it is seeking to annul the enforcement of the order, on the grounds that the court is acting against a regulation enacted in September 2015 by initiating the case.

Noting that the Civil Court held the first hearing 26 days after the Supreme Court order- including public holidays- the AG Office emphasized that there is a six-month period to pay off the amount.

It also noted that the court can take initiative in a case only after the failure to complete a payment within the given time.

Monday’s hearing was held behind closed doors, against the Constitution. However, while the court had shared details of the hearing with the media, the AG Office said that its decision to hold the hearing behind closed doors blocked the public from seeing what actually transpired at the hearing in such a public interest case.

- comment