Split High Court orders tourism ministry to honour K. Kaashidhuffaru lagoon lease
A divided High Court has found the lease of K. Kaashidhuffaru lagoon for a tourist resort valid and in force, directing the Ministry of Tourism to comply, in a 2-1 judgment open to Supreme Court appeal.
The Ministry of Tourism must abide by an agreement leasing K. Kaashidhuffaru lagoon for a tourist resort, the High Court has ruled, with two of its three judges finding that the agreement is valid and remains in force. One of the majority opinions warned that the State could otherwise face heavy compensation costs.
The court handed down its decision on case 2022/HC-A/173 on 29 October 2026. Either side may take it to the Supreme Court.
Background to the dispute
Hamid Ismail of Ma. Shooramanzil brought the appeal against the State, listed as Ministry of Tourism (Maldives State), challenging the Civil Court's judgment in 4114/Cv-C/2019. The High Court registered the appeal on 2 June 2022, and Marina Development Private Limited joined as an intervening party.
The dispute concerns the lease of the lagoon to develop a 200-bed tourist resort. Its chronology:
- Original agreement signed by the Ministry of Tourism: 22 June 2008
- Follow-on agreement between the two sides: 19 February 2015
- Ministry's termination notice (reference 88-LS/INDIV/2017/137): 19 June 2017
How the judges divided
Presiding judge Abdulla Jameel Moosa joined Judge Mohamed Shaneez Abdulla in finding the parties' agreement valid and still in effect, and in instructing the ministry to act according to its terms.
Marina Development's bid to hold on to rights it had acquired was rejected, since in the majority's view no third party can derive rights from a State act that is itself invalid.
Judge Moosa's opinion described the 2017 termination notice as "born dead": it had never carried any legal effect.
Judge Shaneez's opinion cautioned that failing to hand back the lagoon could expose the State to a very large financial burden, with compensation due for lost investment as well as future profit. Giving the lagoon back, it added, was the option that would cost the State least.
Judge Hassan Shafeeu dissented, seeing no grounds to disturb the Civil Court's ruling.
The court has posted the full text of the judgment on its website.
