The Civil Court has ruled in favor of the UAE Embassy in a lawsuit brought by the owner of the building housing the embassy, dismissing the case due to diplomatic immunity. The lawsuit sought to recover over USD 92,000 (MVR 1.4 million) in unpaid rent.
The dispute originated from the UAE Embassy’s occupation of three floors in the 'Niusha' building, located in the Galolhu ward, from May 1, 2020, to October 2022. During this period, the property was initially leased to another party under a construction-lease agreement, which the embassy had negotiated. Ownership of the building reverted to the original property owner in August 2022, at which point the embassy expressed its intention to vacate. Despite this, the embassy's belongings remained in the building until October 2022, leading to a claim for USD 42,900 in unpaid rent.
Additionally, the lawsuit sought compensation for alleged lease termination without the required notice, amounting to USD 48,720, bringing the total claim to over USD 92,000, including legal costs.
However, the court, presided over by Judge Hafiza Abdul Sattar, ruled that the UAE Embassy was protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The convention, which is also enshrined in the Maldives' Civil Procedure Code, grants diplomatic immunity to embassies and high commissions, thus shielding them from legal prosecution in Maldivian courts.
This ruling aligns with a similar case where the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against the Indian Embassy for unpaid rent, reinforcing the principle of diplomatic immunity in Maldivian legal practice.
The ruling in this case underscores the complexities surrounding diplomatic immunity and its implications for legal disputes involving foreign embassies. While diplomatic immunity is essential for maintaining smooth international relations and ensuring the unhindered functioning of diplomatic missions, it can also create challenges for property owners and businesses dealing with embassies.
In such scenarios, it is crucial for both parties—embassies and local entities—to have clear agreements and understandings to prevent disputes. This case highlights the need for precise lease agreements and communication to manage expectations and avoid misunderstandings. While the court’s decision reaffirms the protection granted under international conventions, it also prompts a reflection on how diplomatic immunity interacts with practical business and legal realities in host countries.
