An investor accuses employees of taking over his company by trick

The Federal Supreme Court referred a case brought by an investor against two employees working with him to the Court of Appeal, accusing them of seizing the company by fraud, based on a waiver agreement from his agent, while the plaintiff confirmed that he had canceled the power of attorney earlier.

In detail, an investor filed a lawsuit against others, demanding «reassign an arithmetic expert, to liquidate the account of a meat industry», explaining that «the defendants are working with him, and seized fraud on the institution owned by him, and that the real owner of the company», demanding «recover his rights Finance, profits ».

The defendants filed a waiver of the lawsuit attributed to the investor under the settlement contract approved by the notary public.

The Court of First Instance ruled that the plaintiff had waived his claim under the notary settlement agreement and was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiff said that he was unaware of and not satisfied with the settlement, as it was issued by his agent under a canceled agency, and does not allow the agent or authorize him only the work of the administration, and with being an editor with a person who has no capacity, with fraud and fraud and fraud.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, affirming that “the trial court must take note of the evidence before it and respond to the substantive defense of the litigants whose opinion may change in the case by a legal and admissible response. If the court fails to speak in its judgment of the evidence affecting the dispute, The adversary stuck to its significance and did not examine what was stated by the fact that it took the reality of the case in the case, and that it has exhausted everything in its power to reveal the right to it, the ruling is a minor ».

She pointed out that the plaintiff insisted, before the court of first instance, that the settlement was unaware of, not satisfied with, the legal framework, as well as being issued by a canceled agency, in addition to fraud, fraud and fraud suffered by the prosecutor's brother, but the ruling ignored this essential defense And omitted his examination of the lawsuit and scrutinized as much as necessary deficiencies and breach of the right of defense, and the grounds for his elimination on the grounds are not enough to carry, which must be overturned and referral.

The two employees submitted to the court a waiver of the lawsuit attributed to the investor.