Three men claim they were violently assaulted by up to 20 men in bid to force them out of rented property

Injunction granted to men who say attackers broke wooden chairs over their bodies and left Inchicore home like ‘war zone’

Ali Nezam, solicitor, with the three men, Hussein Mohamed Hussein Mahmoud, Gomaa Rashed Ahmed Arafa and Mostafa Elsayed Morshedy Elsayed Faraag, at the Four Courts.
Ali Nezam, solicitor, with the three men, Hussein Mohamed Hussein Mahmoud, Gomaa Rashed Ahmed Arafa and Mostafa Elsayed Morshedy Elsayed Faraag, at the Four Courts.

Three Dublin-based Egyptian men have claimed before the High Court they were violently attacked by a large group of men demanding they vacate the apartment where they live.

The three claim that earlier this month they were badly injured and subjected to a prolonged assault by up to 20 men who “broke wooden chairs” on their bodies and damaged their possessions.

They claim their apartment at Tyrconnell Road, Inchicore, Dublin, was left looking like “a war zone” and their living situation has been “turned on its head”.

The sole purpose of the attack, the three men claim, is to get them to vacate immediately the property they have rented for over a year.

READ MORE

Arising out of the incident, the three men: Mostafa Elsayed Morshedy Elsayed Faraag, Gomaa Rashed Ahmed Arafa and Hussein Mohamed Hussein Mahmoud, secured a temporary High Court injunction against the owner of the apartment, Mr Xia Ping He, who has denied any wrongdoing or involvement in the attack.

The plaintiffs claim they entered into a tenancy agreement with a landlord named Bovision but do not know definitively if the defendant, who owns the building, is their landlord.

They do not know if a purported middleman, called ‘Tony’, who they claim has been blamed for arranging the attack, has being acting as the defendant’s agent or is separate and distinct from Xia Ping He.

What they are certain of is that ‘Tony’ and the defendant are known to each other, the court heard.

On Wednesday, while only the plaintiffs were in court and notified of the case, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore granted the three men a temporary High Court injunction restraining their landlord and any other person who has notice of the order from assaulting, threatening violence or intimidating them.

The order also prevents the defendant landlord and any other person from trespassing at, or damaging, the plaintiffs’ property at the residence at Tyrconnell Road.

The judge was satisfied from the evidence put before the court to grant the injunction.

Represented by barrister David O’Brien, instructed by solicitor Ali Nezem, the three men claim that in October 2021 they entered into a tenancy arrangement for an apartment over a takeaway restaurant at Tyrconnell Road both of which they claim are owned by the defendant.

The agreement was for one year with the option of a rollover, they claim.

On the night of December 13th the plaintiffs said that they were left shocked when the men forcibly entered their apartment and clearly demanded that the three plaintiffs vacate the apartment.

This was the sole purpose of their visit, and it is claimed that the group threatened to come back if they did not vacate the premises.

The ordeal came as a shock to them. They understood from their rental agreement that they were entitled to 30 days’ notice of the termination of that arrangement.

No such notice was given, they claim, and they fear they may be attacked again.

The court heard that in response to their concerns they have received communications from the defendant, and his representatives, stating that Xia Ping He is “a stranger” to the incidents and has distanced himself from the attack and from ‘Tony’.

The plaintiffs also claim that in one communication, the defendant said that he had been in contact with ‘Tony’, who has been described to the plaintiffs as a tenant of the defendant, and that the “assailants would not return”.

The plaintiffs say it appears to them that ‘Tony’ may be acting on behalf of the defendant and that the defendant’s responses to their concerns have provided them “with little comfort.”

If they are wrong about that they want the defendant to provide them with details about ‘Tony’, including his name and address, so they can add him to their proceedings.

The matter will return before the court in early January.