Supreme Court Judgement: Maryam Rasheedha v Ahmed Nazim

/in , , /by

 
Summary

An appeal where the Supreme Court considered when new evidence can be adduced during the appeal at the Supreme Court. The Court established the criteria that need to be met before leave to adduce new evidence on an appeal can be granted.1

 
Factual Background

  1. Ahmed Nazim, the titleholder for the state dwelling Ma. Daisy Villa, leased the dwelling for a period of 15 years under a lease agreement entered into with Mohamed Riyaz. The term of the lease agreement – 1 September 2003 to 1 September 2018 – was extended for another period of 5 years beginning 1 September 2018 and ending on 1 September 2023.
  2. Ahmed Nazim married Maryam Rasheedha and had a child on 28 August 2010. After their marriage was dissolved, Maryam Rasheed petitioned the Family Court to grant an order against Ahmed Nazim for alimony payments and for the provision of shelter for the child. The Family Court found in favour of Maryam Rasheeda and granted the order for the provision of shelter for the child.

 
Procedural History

  1. Maryam Rasheedha filed a case for enforcement of judgment against Ahmed Nazim when he failed to comply with the Court’s order of provision of shelter for the child. Mariyam Rasheed requested the Court to order Ahmed Nazim to provide shelter to the child at Ma. Daisy Villa.
  2. The Family Court found in favour of Maryam Rasheedha and held that Ahmed Nazim must provide shelter for his child in Ma. Daisy Villa. The Family Court opined that the lease extension agreement of Ma. Daisy Villa commences only on a future date (i.e., 1 September 2018) and the new lease is not yet in force. Therefore, the Family Court ordered Ahmed Nazim to provide housing for the child in Ma. Daisy Villa after the end of the first lease or if the circumstances of the first lease changes.
  3. On appeal to the High Court, the court struck down the Family Court’s decision and held that Ahmed Nazim must pay MVR 10,000 on a monthly basis until the child reaches 18 years of age.
  4. The High Court observed that a separate lease agreement existed between Ahmed Nazim and Mohamed Riyaz for the lease of Ma. Daisy Villa for the original period of 15 years, and the extension of a 5 year period from the date the original term ended. The Court opined that once a contract has been formed, parties to the contract must honour the terms of the contract, and the court may only terminate the contract provided a party to the contract has contravened the terms. The Court further observed that Ahmed Nazim was willing to provide shelter for the child. Though Ahmed Nazim contended that he would only be able to pay MVR 5,000 as a rental payment, the Court opined that, based on rental prices in Male’ and the greater Male’ region, rental payments of MVR 10,000 would be necessary to provide adequate housing for the child.

 
Legal Issue

If a contract has been entered into in a way that impedes the obligations of a father to provide shelter to the child, will such a contract be void or deemed voidable?

 
Holding(s)

Unanimously dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that there was no legal basis to deem void the lease renewal agreement entered into between Ahmed Nazim and Mohamed Riyaz.

 
Reasoning(s)

  1. Although Section 18(a) of the Maldives Land Act requires the seller of a dwelling to arrange shelter for any person that they are legally responsible for, Section 27 and Section 28 of the Maldives Land Act2 does not impose any such restrictions with respect to the lease of state dwellings or buildings developed on such dwellings.
  2. The Court observed that the doctrine of freedom of contract is recognised under the Islamic Sharia, the laws of the Maldives, and in other democratic jurisdictions. Under the doctrine, the parties have full power and choice to stipulate the substance of the contracts and such contracts cannot be terminated provided they do not contravene the peremptory rule or the rule on public order and public decency. It is an obligation of the parties to enforce in good faith all contracts that have the prerequisite elements of a contract.
  3. After a valid and enforceable contract is formed, it is an obligation for both parties to act accordingly with the contract. The Contract Act3 lays down the situations in which the contract can be terminated. There is no legal rule in Islamic Sharia or the Maldivian laws that allow the termination of an enforceable contract due to obligations imposed on one party by another Act despite the only way to fulfil the obligations is to terminate the contract.
  4. Hence, the Supreme Court held that even if the contract was formed in a way that impedes the father’s obligations to provide housing for the child, the contract cannot be void or voidable.
References

1 2019/SC-A/80.
2 Law Number 1/2002.
3 Law Number 4/91.