The Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a bank against a judgment that did not meet the demand of a defaulted customer, to pay the amount of 572 thousand dirhams, the value of financial facilities granted to him and did not pay, as the Court confirmed in the rationale that the bank violated the instructions of the High Order on obtaining collateral that confirms the borrower's ability to repay The customer's salary is AED 16,558, while he received a personal loan of AED 350,000 and three credit card facilities of AED 229,000.
In detail, a bank filed a lawsuit, demanding that a non-performing customer be obliged to pay him AED 572,599 with legal interest at 12%, explaining in his claim that the customer was granted a financial facility of a personal loan of AED 350,000 with an interest rate of 6.7% and a credit card. A second credit card of AED 100,631 at 36% interest and a third credit card of AED 4,133 at 36% interest. After receiving the bank facilities, it has stopped paying since April 2017 and has defaulted on the claim amount. ''
The Court of First Instance rejected the lawsuit, and then the Court of Appeal canceled the first judgment in the rejection of the lawsuit, and again to oblige the customer to pay the bank the amount of 321 thousand and 453 dirhams, and the legal interest 6% from the date of the claim until full payment and uphold the preliminary judgment. except that.
The bank did not accept this verdict, and he appealed against it, pointing out that "the verdict erred in the application of the law because the facility in question is personal, and the bank may get sufficient guarantees that confirm the left of the borrower, and the report of the experts proved the indebtedness of the last public money worthy of legal protection, and that banks and institutions It is the finance that values collateral and lending terms, and the judgment has not complied with this consideration. "
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the bank's appeal, stressing that "assessing the adequacy of the borrower's or sponsor's income, if any, and whether it is considered to be in line with the size of the loan granted to the borrower by the bank, is subject to the subject judge's discretion without the supervision of the Supreme Court. In the lawsuit, the assessment of evidence, including expert reports, as an element of proof, is up to the trial court as long as it has established its justified reasons for its fixed origin with papers and sufficient to carry it, and does not yet have to respond independently to the appellants directed to the report as long as it is convinced that it is informed of it. To the report and knowledge of it, and calculated to show the truth that convinced them and provided evidence. "
The court explained that "the judgment of the appeal to oblige the client to pay an amount of 321,453.44 dirhams with legal interest rate of 6% as of the date of the claim until full payment, and to refuse otherwise," noting that "the judgment was based on the evidence of the case The lender's bank has violated the High Order issued by His Highness the President of the UAE in respect of the guarantees granted by the three credit cards - AED 124.264 at 36% interest rate and AED 100.631 at 36% interest rate. AED 4113 with 36% interest rate I am entitled to credit cards including principal and interest calculated for each card, which is paid in installments from the customer's account with the bank on the 27th of each month, as well as the terms and conditions of those cards and their approval, all of which do not fit with the guarantees provided by the customer to the bank, which are This includes three checks covering the credit limit of the credit cards. The customer has a personal loan with the same bank in the amount of AED 350,000, and agreed to repay it in 59 installments, each value of AED 7060 per month.
The court confirmed that "the appeal judgment weighed between the value of the said installment and the client's net salary of 16,558.50 dirhams and the fixed certificate of salary, and decided that there is a proportionality between them, as deducting the premium from the salary remains in the amount of a normal life, and consequently the high order does not apply to The personal loan obtained from the customer, due to which it has been incurred due to the amount of AED 321,453.44, obliged him to pay the bank with legal interest of 6%.