Tag: civil court

Judge Abdulla case to be appealed by JSC

The Civil Court’s annulment of the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision that Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed is guilty of misconduct has been appealed by the JSC.

JSC Media Official Hassan Zaheen said on Tuesday that the decision to appeal the case was made some time ago.

Judge Abdullah was found guilty of misconduct by JSC following a report by DhiTV News, on July 2009, of a comment made by Judge Abdullah about former President Mohamed Nasheed’s government.

The Civil Court annulled the JSC’s decision on 25 July 2012.

It was ruled by Civil Court that evidence presented by JSC’s investigation team on the subject was not sufficient to prove that Judge Abdulla made the comment.

The Court highlighted that JSC did not allow Judge Abdulla the opportunity to present his defence on this case.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court suspends all cases

The Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court has announced that it has suspended all ongoing cases following an injunction issued by the High Court on Sunday halting the trial of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The High Court granted the temporary injunction or stay of the former President’s trial pending a ruling on procedural points raised by Nasheed’s legal team, which included the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

In its announcement on Monday, the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court said it has suspended proceedings on cases involving marriage, divorce, guardianship, family matters, property lawsuits, civil cases, criminal cases involving extension of detention periods as well as other matters that could be affected by the questions raised over its legal status.

Meanwhile, at Sunday’s hearing of Nasheed’s appeal at the High Court, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) revealed that it had filed a case at the Supreme Court to determine the legitimacy of the court.

Writing in his personal blog last month, Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed explained that a magistrate court could not legally be established at Hulhumale’.

The Judicature Act states that magistrate courts should be set up in inhabited islands aside from Male’ without a division of the trial courts (Criminal Court, Civil Court, Family Court and Juvenile Court).

According to appendix two of the constitution, Hulhumale’ is a district or ward of Male’ and not a separate inhabited island. The former magistrate court at Hulhumale’ – controversially set up by the JSC before the enactment of the Judicature Act in October 2010 – should therefore have been dissolved when the Judicature Act was ratified.

Meanwhile, local media reported yesterday (November 5) that the Supreme Court ordered the Civil Court to send over all files and documents on a case submitted by a lawyer, Ismail Visham, over a year ago challenging the legitimacy of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court.

The Supreme Court had issued a writ of mandamus ordering the lower court to suspend its hearings and had taken over the case. The apex court had however not conducted any hearings on the case.

A court official told local media that a hearing on the case of the Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court’s legal status has not been scheduled.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Central Hotel sold to Champa Brothers

The 40-room Central Hotel in Male’ on the 4,122 square feet G. Sanorage has been sold to Champa Brothers Maldives Pvt Ltd for MVR 11 million (US$713,359).

The hotel was sold along with an adjacent 1,899 square feet plot and 10-storey building on G. Koddhiparuge for MVR 5.9 million (US$382,620).

Both buildings were the source of legal disputes between the previous owners and Champa Brothers. The Civil Court ruled on October 16 (Dhivehi) and on October 23 (Dhivehi) that the estate sales were valid as the transactions were completed and full payments were made by the company.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MIRA files cases at Civil Court to enforce judgments over unpaid rent, fines

The Maldives Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) has filed a case at the Civil Court seeking US$145,291.31 as unpaid fines levied for non-payment of lease rent for Alif Alif Maaga.

In a press release on Wednesday, MIRA explained that the case was filed to enforce a Civil Court judgment on September 30, which ordered Ellaidhoo Investments Pvt Ltd to settle the fine within 14 days. However, as a result of non-payment, the resort company owes MIRA US$145,291.31 as of October 21.

The MIRA press release noted that the fine would increase until the full payment is made.

MIRA further revealed that Ellaidhoo Investments on October 16 settled US$19,274 as unpaid lease rent for Alif Alif Ellaidhoo in accordance with a previous Civil Court judgment. As a result, MIRA was in the process of withdrawing a case filed on June 4 at the Civil Court to enforce the judgment.

MIRA also filed a case at the Civil Court last week against Alliance Management Services Company Pvt Ltd over an unpaid fine of MVR1.5 million (US$97,276) imposed for late payment of tourism tax for M.S. Costa Romantica.

In its judgment on July 17, the Civil Court ordered Alliance Management Services Company Pvt Ltd to pay a fine of MVR 1,000 (US$64) for each of the 1500 beds on the cruise liner, M.S. Costa Romantica. The court had also ordered Alliance Management Services Pvt Ltd to settle the full amount of MVR 1,500,000 within two months.

Meanwhile, on October 14, MIRA filed  a case against Freesia Maldives Pvt Ltd at the Civil Court to claim the rent of ‘Galolhu Boalha Dhandu [Galholhu Stadium] 6 Number Fihaara [Shop]’ and the fine imposed for late payment of rent.

The case aganst Freesia involves MVR 352,862.90 (US$22,883) as unpaid rent and MVR 154,374.94 (US$10,011) as the fine imposed for non-payment of rent  from May 19, 2010 to October 31, 2010.

Freesia Maldives Pvt Ltd owes a total of MVR 507,234.84 (US$32,894) to the state.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MVR 500,000 paid to Gayoom’s parliament appointees

The state has paid approximately MVR 500,000 (US$32,425) each as compensation to eight MPs appointed to parliament by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, following a Supreme Court ruling in March that their removal was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled on March 13 that the removal of the eight presidential appointees in late 2008 by incoming President Mohamed Nasheed – who replaced the eight with his own appointees – was unconstitutional and ordered the state to compensate the MPs for salaries and allowances due for the remainder of the last parliamentary session of the 16th parliament.

The Supreme Court ruling had overruled judgments by the Civil Court and High Court.

Local daily Haveeru reported yesterday that one MP had been paid MVR 407,000 (US$26,394) so far. The former MP, who wished to remain anonymous, was quoted as saying that the “Finance [Ministry] told some of the MPs that the amounts cannot be paid now due to the financial constraints of the state.”

“As far as I know, the state will pay them over a period,” the anonymous MP added.

The case was filed by former President Gayoom’s appointees Rozaina Adam and Ahmed Mahloof. While both were elected to the 17th parliament on a Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) ticket, MP Mahloof left the DRP to join former President Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

The case reached the Supreme Court one and a half years ago after the Civil Court and High Court ruled that the Nasheed administration had the legal authority to dismiss Gayoom appointees.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Civil court freezes accounts and imposes travel ban on ‘VB’ heirs

The Civil Court has frozen all bank accounts and issued a travel ban for all heirs of late Moosa Faheem, father-in-law of the Minister of Home Affairs, Mohamed Jameel Ahmed.

The Civil Court order stems from a case filed by Mohamed Anees, who had served as General Manager of four AAA Resorts, before the company split up.

The court order was issued on Sunday, based on the heirs’ failure to settle a debt of MVR 559,555 (US$36,300) owed to the plaintiff in accordance with a Civil Court ruling of 2009.

The court had at the time ordered the heirs to pay the specified amount as damages after it had been proven in court that assets belonging to Anees, including a speedboat and a ‘dhoni’ boat, had been wrongfully passed on to the heirs of Faheem following his death.

Anees had told local media that the amount specified was a value proposed by the court itself as the cost of renting his vessels until the 2009 hearing.

“Moosa Faheem’s family was ordered by court to make this payment back in 2009. But then they appealed the case in the High Court without paying up. However, on July 27, High Court ruled in favour of the Civil Court’s verdict,” Anees told local media.

“The Civil Court has been trying to implement this ruling, but Shaveed’s family members never attend hearings. They didn’t even come to this last Thursday’s hearing. Then at a hearing of another case I’ve filed against them I said it’s possible to do things like freeze their accounts or hold their passports. That then I’d get the payments,” Anees further said.

Meanwhile, a member of Faheem’s family is reported in local media as saying that the court had concluded the case while they have appealed it in the Supreme Court and none of the heirs were in the country. He further said, “This is a political move to tarnish our family name.”

The heirs of Moosa Faheem include Haulath Faheem – wife of current Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed – and Mohamed Shaveed, Chairman of VB Brothers Pvt Ltd.

Local media has reported that the Department of Immigration denies having received a court order for withholding the passports of Faheem’s heirs.

Controller of Immigration Mohamed Ali, spoke to Minivan News today on the issue.

“We get lots and lots of court orders to impose travel bans. From magistrate courts, the civil court and many other courts. We implement these orders as they come to us. I will have to check and see if this particular order has been received. But even if it did, to share it with media? I’ll need to seek advice on whether or not to to do that,” Ali said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Defence Minister launches defamation case against Nasheed over “traitor” allegations

The first hearing of a defamation case filed by Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim against former President Mohamed Nasheed took place at the Civil Court today, with MVR 3.75 million (US$243,506) being sought in compensation.

The hearing was attended by legal representatives for both Mohamed Nazim and former President Nasheed, who was today detained by police for a separate criminal trial over the detention of Criminal Court Chief Judge Abdulla Mohamed.

Nazim’s lawyer told the court that the defence minister’s good name and reputation had been affected by claims made by Nasheed, who had called his client a traitor during a public address at a rally following February’s controversial transfer of power.

Newspaper ‘Haveeru’ reported at the time that following Nasheed’s speech, a group of protesters came outside Nazim’s house and that it had “left Nazim’s family in fear”.

Former Youth Minister Dr Hassan Latheef attended today’s hearing to represent Nasheed, telling the presiding judge that the former president denied the charges against him.

Latheef told the court that evidence would be provided to support Nasheed’s allegations, adding that the former president would want to produce such evidence to the court.

The next hearing for the case is now expected to take place will held a week on Thursday (October 18) . The presiding judge also said that during the next hearing Nasheed’s lawyer will get his chance to respond to the charges.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed was arrested this morning after Hulhumale’ Magistrate Court issued an arrest warrant. The warrant was issued after Nasheed ignored court summons to produce himself to the court for the hearing of a case filed against him for ‘’unlawful’’ arrest of Chief Judge of the Criminal Court Abdulla Mohamed.

Nasheed was at Fresmathoda Island in Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll campaigning for the next presidential elections when he was arrested.

Another case of defamation has also been filed by Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz at the Civil Court against Nasheed. A hearing in to the case was recently scheduled but before the scheduled time it was cancelled.  Local media reports say that the hearing was postponed upon Riyaz’s request.

Back in April, the Maldives Police Service had forwarded a case concerning alcohol bottles allegedly confiscated from the home of Nasheed to the Prosecutor General’s (PG’s) Office.

A source with knowledge of the case has told Minivan News that the PG’s Office had decided that evidence provided by police at the time had not been obtained under the required procedures and regulations.

The source who wished to remain anonymous, said the PG had requested that police resubmit the case with evidence that was “legally obtained”, if the case was to proceed to a criminal hearing – a request that had not been forthcoming so far.

Prosecutor General Ahmed Muizz was not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press for an official response.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MMC to investigate Raajje TV dispute despite channel’s defiance

The Maldives Media Council (MMC) has said it intends to continue its investigations into the police’s refusal to cooperate with Raajje TV despite the channels refusal to work with the MMC, reports local media.

The MMC statement said that it was constitutionally obliged to look into the case and to ensure a stable and free media environment in the country.

Haveeru reported that Raajje TV had sent the MMC a letter accusing it of incompetence, having – in its view – failed to resolve the issue previously.

The station said that it would not comment on the case further until the Civil Court had finished deliberating on the issue.

Raajje TV has filed cases against both the police and the President’s Office alleging that the station had been boycotted as well as not receiving appropriate protections from the authorities.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former police intelligence head sues for “unlawful dismissal”

The Former head of the Police Intelligence Department Mohamed ‘MC’ Hameed has filed a lawsuit in the Civil Court against the Maldives Police Service, claiming that his dismissal from the institution was unlawful.

Hameed was dismissed from his position over allegations that he provided confidential information to an opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) report written by the former government’s Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam and National Security Advisor Ameen Faisal.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Hameed said he had signed and filed documents relating to the case in the Civil Court on Saturday (August 25).

“I have noted that the dismissal was against the constitution and the Police Act,’’ he said. ‘’We have noted many articles that were violated in the dismissal.”

Earlier this month, the Police Disciplinary Board decided to relieve Chief Superintendent ‘MC’ Mohamed Hameed and Superintendent Ibrahim Adhnan of duty.

At the same time, the Disciplinary Board also announced it was demoting Superintendent ‘Lady’ Ibrahim Manik to Chief Inspector of Police, removing the disciplinary badge on his uniform.

in June, Police arrested Hameed over allegations he had contributed to the MDP’s report, the publication of which was derided by the government as an “act of terrorism”.  The Criminal Court later extended his detention period to five days before releasing him on the grounds that it did “not believe the detention should be extended any further.”

The Criminal Court’s decision to detain Hameed was appealed by his family in the High Court, which ruled that there was no grounds to rule an extension of his detention was unlawful at the time.

Hameed’s lawyer Ismail Visham argued during the High Court hearing that his client had been subjected to discrimination.

Visham told the court that there were police officers accused of more serious crimes who had not been detained, alleging that in one instance, a senior colleague presently stood accused of attempting to rape a woman.

He further contended that the Criminal Court judge had extended Hameed’s detention period not based on police evidence, but the judge’s own view.  Visham contended that Hameed had therefore lost the right to respond to the accusations against him.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)