Earlier this year, the center’s mosque in Clonskeagh, south Dublin, was shut down. Dubai: After the claimant withdrew his complaint, an Irish court dismissed all accusations and ordered him to pay full legal fees, ending a seven-month legal struggle over the management of the Islamic Cultural Center of Ireland. According to the newspaper, the High Court in Dublin made a decision after Abdelbaset Al Sayed, who had contested the center’s management during an internal conflict involving the Al Maktoum Foundation, withdrew his petition.
Following the closure of the center’s mosque in Clonskeagh, south Dublin, earlier this year, the case gained attention throughout Ireland’s Muslim community. The withdrawal of the claim meant that all accusations against the center’s directors were essentially dropped, Justice David Nolan informed the court. He pointed out that a crucial legal document needed to start proceedings before the High Court was missing from the case file, which he called a fundamental flaw. The court mandated that Al Sayed pay all legal fees and make up for any harm the center’s closure and disruption of operations caused to the community.
The exact amount of compensation, including legal fees and damages related to what the court described as baseless accusations that caused the shutdown, will be decided in a follow-up hearing on January 13, 2026. The decision essentially absolved the center’s present management of the charges made against it. In spite of the controversy surrounding the case, the court praised the Al Maktoum Foundation trustees for their patience and unwavering dedication to serve the community throughout the proceedings.
The judge also emphasized the UAE’s humanitarian and development role through the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Humanitarian and Charity Establishment, pointing out that its activity was motivated by community service and institutional responsibility rather than catchphrases or special interests. After an administrative dispute that resulted in the mosque’s temporary closure, the case was first filed in May. The conflict was exacerbated when Al Sayed, who claimed to have held a supervisory position at the organization since 2012, asserted that the nomination of new board members had been illegal.
Nonetheless, the court deemed the claimant’s legal grounds to be feeble and inadequately supported by the law. It came to the conclusion that the case had not satisfied the fundamental evidentiary and procedural conditions required to move further. Justice Nolan emphasized the dispute’s broader effects, stating that it had hindered the community’s advancement and denied it a significant opportunity. He emphasized the necessity of legal responsibility when using litigation, emphasizing that the purpose of courts is to establish facts and settle disputes, not to intensify internal problems.
