Saturday, 7 November 2026 · 27 Jumada I 1448 AH
National

High Court upholds Kaashidhuffaru lagoon resort lease in 2-1 ruling

The High Court has ruled 2-1 that the agreement leasing K. Kaashidhuffaru lagoon for a tourist resort is valid and in force, and ordered the Ministry of Tourism to comply with it.

WhatsApp
High Court upholds Kaashidhuffaru lagoon resort lease in 2-1 ruling

The High Court ruled 2-1 on 29 October 2026 that an agreement leasing K. Kaashidhuffaru lagoon for a tourist resort is valid and in force, and ordered the Ministry of Tourism to abide by it.

The judgment, in case 2022/HC-A/173, can be appealed to the Supreme Court by either side.

Background to the case

Hamid Ismail of Ma. Shooramanzil filed the appeal against the Ministry of Tourism (Maldives State), contesting the Civil Court's decision in case 4114/Cv-C/2019. The High Court registered it on 2 June 2022, and Marina Development Private Limited joined the proceedings as an intervening party.

At issue is the lease of the lagoon for the development of a 200-bed tourist resort. Key dates in the dispute:

  • 22 June 2008: original agreement signed with the Ministry of Tourism
  • 19 February 2015: subsequent agreement between the parties
  • 19 June 2017: termination notice issued by the ministry (ref 88-LS/INDIV/2017/137)

Majority opinion

Judge Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla, joined by presiding judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa, held that the parties' agreement is valid and remains in effect, and directed the ministry to act according to its terms.

The majority turned down the intervening company's request to retain the rights it had acquired, on the basis that an invalid act by the State cannot give rise to third-party rights.

In his opinion, Judge Moosa described the 2017 termination notice as "born dead", meaning it never had any legal effect.

Judge Shaneez's opinion warned that failing to return the lagoon could leave the State facing a very large financial burden in compensation for lost investment and future profit. Handing the lagoon back, it said, would cost the State the least.

Dissenting view

Judge Hassan Shafeeu disagreed with the majority, finding no grounds to alter the Civil Court's decision.

Next steps

An appeal to the Supreme Court remains open to the parties. The High Court has published the full judgment on its website.