Supreme Court halts High Court's obstruction ruling against HDC

The Supreme Court has issued an order staying the enforcement of a High Court decision that found the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) had obstructed prominent lawyer Mariyam Shunana. This development follows an appeal lodged by HDC against the High Court's ruling.

The High Court had previously determined that HDC tried to obstruct Shunana after she initiated a Civil Court case concerning flats developed by Jaah Investment Pvt Ltd in Hulhumale'.

In its latest directive, delivered on Sunday, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to halt its proceedings in the matter for the time being.

The dispute stems from HDC's cancellation of its agreement with Jaah Investment Pvt Ltd in March of last year, citing a failure to complete work by the stipulated deadline, and the subsequent reclamation of the flats.

Shunana, who operates the law firm Shunana & Co, filed a civil lawsuit against Jaah, HDC, and Jaah's owners after purchasing an apartment in Jaah's ‘The Gardens’ apartment complex. She is seeking compensation and legal fees for damages allegedly incurred due to a breach of the flat agreement with Jaah.

In February, the Civil Court ruled that the agreement in question was solely between Shunana and Jaah, concluding there was no legal basis to continue the case with other parties Shunana had sought to implicate in her appeal.

When the case proceeded to the High Court, HDC raised a procedural objection, citing Article 287 of the Civil Procedure Code. HDC requested the court to mandate a security deposit of MVR 15,000, representing the estimated cost of the appeal, and sought dismissal of the case should Shunana fail to provide these funds.

Shunana, however, contended that this proposal lacked genuine merit, constituted a frivolous waste of judicial time, and disregarded established legal principles. She urged the court to admonish HDC against similar future conduct and to issue a written assurance regarding proper future proceedings.

The High Court subsequently ruled that HDC failed to adequately clarify the conditions necessitating a security deposit from Shunana. The decision further stated that HDC had not discharged its responsibility by requesting this solely on the basis of it being previously documented.

Finding no grounds to dismiss the case, the High Court's judicial panel, comprising Justices Dheebanaz Fahmy, Hussain Mazeed, and Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla, delivered a unanimous ruling.

The High Court's ruling also noted that HDC's objection was filed with the intent to obstruct Shunana and unduly consume court time. The court additionally found that HDC had obstructed justice and abused the judicial system.

Furthermore, the High Court directed HDC to submit a written assurance to the High Court within 30 days, committing to conduct future proceedings appropriately.