K. Male'
|
20 May 2019 | Mon 16:24
Maldives Civil Court
Maldives Civil Court
RaajjeMV
Dheebaajaa Investments
Dheebaajaa case: state argues that top court order does not specify when payment is due
 
Civil Court, in October 2014, ordered the state to pay the company MVR 348 million as a compensation
 
The agreement was annulled in 2013
 
Dheebaajaa Investments was contracted to provide ferry services to four atolls in the Northern Province, 2010

The state has noted that the Supreme Court’s order to pay MVR 348 million to Dheebaajaa Investments “does not specify a period to do so.”

A hearing in the case was held at the Civil Court on Monday, where the state presented a five-page document, seeking to nullify the case on the grounds that the court "is acting against regulations."

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 verdict on 26 June 2018.

However, the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Court verdict on 17 April 2019.

While the initial Civil Court order states that the amount must be paid within a period of six months, Attorney General Ibrahim Riffath highlighted that the Supreme Court does not specify a period.

Civil Court’s order on 23 October 2014, states the payment should be completed within six months. This means that the period has passed. Hence, the Supreme Court verdict should clearly state how the amount should be paid.

Riffath also emphasized that the MVR 348 million “is not a just compensation.”

Why is that the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the lower court verdict to pay MVR 348 million without further review, despite the High Court overturning the order? This raises questions regarding the bribery allegations against the judges.

While there have been reports that the Supreme Court justice were bribed to back Civil Court’s initial verdict in the case, the Department of Judicial Administration (DJA) denies this.

Furthermore, the AG noted that the court had failed to respond to its letter seeking clarification in the case, with Judge Hassan Fahmy responding that “the court will do so.”

The next hearing in the case will be held on Thursday.

At Monday’s hearing, Dheebaajaa Investments asked to implement the Supreme Court order, noting that it has been six years since the case began.

Last updated at: 6 months ago
Reviewed by: Humaam Ali
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
comment