Case: 99/Hc-A/107

Facts: the case is about an agreement between Ahmed Didi and Abdul Sathar
Ibrahim. Since the building is given for sale on wrong terms Abdul Sathar
Ibrahim Manik wants court to rule out that Mohamed Ahmed Didi should
vacate the place.
The lower court held that Mohamed Ahmed Didi should vacate the place
within 15 days and Mohamed Ahmed Didi should pay and amount of Mrf.500
000 to Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik.
The high court held that since Ahmed Hassan is living in the place a monthly
payment should be fixed until the Mrf.500 000 is repaid. And when the debt
is paid to Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik, Mohamed Ahmed Didi should vacate
the place.
[ 2012/HC-A/267]
Ibrahim Nasir v. Ibrahim Bushry

The appellant acquired a land to the defendant for the building of a

house in consideration of Mrf.500000/-.

The demolition was carried out by the respondent and then the
defendant refused to continue.

Half of the work was done and the parties mutually agreed that the left
of Mrf.108540/70 should be paid back by the respondent.

Held:
It was held that specific performance would be ordered and damages
would be inadequate since there was an agreement between both the
parties agreeing upon the money pointed out before, though the agreement
was not as specified in the Contract Act of the Maldives 1991.

2012/44
# a case where appellant got a land near jetty by a bid which was opened by
Mahibadhoo council
#council gave him land without any contract, he built a hotel their by
spending money worth 2.5 million

#after 1.5 years council forced him to sign an agreement

# he then appealed on this ground and to recover his money from rent as
well as the money he spend on the hotel
Held: high court held that there was an agreement made between both the
parties and there was no undue influence on him as he was unable to prove
that fact. Further judgment went against him by supporting civil court
decision as the contract include two clauses.
1. If the contract is terminated than the hotel would belong to people of
Mahibadhooo.
2. If so than he cant get the money back
2013/HC-A/284.

This is one of the case where specific performance is not granted in Maldives.

Facts

The plaintiff contracted with the defendant to build their house (5 story building) where the contract
stated that first floor should be given for the plaintiffs, and the other 4 floors will be given for the
defendant for 5 years. The defendant constructed an extra floor (6 th floor), breaching the contract. But
later the defendant changed the drawing of the building and paid the fine to the government. The
plaintiff sued the defendant.

The court held that its the duty of the plaintiff to check whether the work of the defendant complies
with the contract. The plaintiff failed to perform their duty, and also the defendant later paid the fine and
changed the drawing of the building.

2009/HC-A/362
Appellent: Ahmed Moosa Didi
Defendant: Attorney Generals Office
This case is concerned with relocating program by the government where the
government builds houses for the residents.
the appelent claimed that he is entitled to a house by the government or the value
of such a house in replacement of his house naming Dhooriya manzil located in
GA.Dhiyadhoo .
he asked for an order to be given to ministry of Home affairs to provide him with an
exact same designed house as provided to other migrants of GA. Dhiyadhoo or to
give him the value of it.
held: the court held that there was no room for such an order since he was given
another land from GA.Gemanafushi .