The recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Maldives on the case, Housing Development Corporation Limited (HDC) v Ibrahim Jihad has set a new precedent in the interpretation of Section 43 of the Judicature Act. The ruling has emphasized the importance of preventing the abuse of the appeal process by parties who arbitrarily use the appeal process to delay making payments or to delay the enforcement of a lower court’s judgment, causing loss to the other party.
The case began when HDC and Ibrahim Jihad entered into a sale and purchase agreement for the sale of a plot of land in Hulhumalé. When Jihad failed to settle the payments as per the agreement, HDC issued a notice of default. However, Jihad failed to settle the outstanding payments despite the notice sent by HDC. Consequently, HDC terminated the agreement and demanded the handover of the land. Jihad challenged the decision by submitting a claim to the Civil Court, but the court ruled in favor of HDC.
Jihad then sought to appeal the judgment of the Civil Court, but the High Court rejected the appeal as the grounds of appeal submitted by him did not satisfy the criteria under Section 27 of the High Court Regulation 2011. Jihad then sought leave from the Supreme Court to appeal this decision of the High Court.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant must provide clear details of legal issues related to the grounds of appeal, and mere submissions arguing inconsistency with the law or failure to consider evidence submitted are not enough to satisfy the criteria under Section 43 of the Judicature Act. The Supreme Court further highlighted that courts should only grant leave to appeal cases that meet the requirements set for granting leave to appeal. The purpose of having the process of application for leave to appeal embodied in the law is to ensure that the facilities available for the administration of justice are not utilized and wasted on cases that do not have any merit.
The decision by the Supreme Court is significant as it sets a new precedent for the interpretation of Section 43 of the Judicature Act. The ruling emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the appeal process is not abused by parties who seek to delay making payments or delay the enforcement of judgments. It also highlights the need for clear and detailed legal arguments to be provided when requesting leave to appeal a decision of the lower court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has set a new precedent in the interpretation of Section 43 of the Judicature Act, emphasizing the importance of preventing the abuse of the appeal process by parties. The decision serves as a reminder that appeals should only be accepted if there are legal arguments based on which the case could possibly succeed at the appellate court. The interpretation of the law by the Supreme Court is a significant step towards preventing the abuse of the court process and ensuring that justice is served in a timely and expeditious manner.