Two employees seize a meat company and its owner resort to the judiciary

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

In detail, an investor filed a lawsuit against others, demanding that "an expert be assigned to settle the account of a meat industry company," explaining that "the defendants are working with him and have seized forgery of the institution owned by him and that the real owner of the company, demanding the recovery of his financial rights and profits."

The defendants filed a claim attributable to the plaintiff under the notary settlement agreement, while the plaintiff contested the settlement contract ratified by the notary and denied it and sought his rejection.

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

The plaintiff said he did not know and did not accept the settlement as it was issued by his agent under a canceled agency, which does not allow the agent and authorize him only the work of the administration and with being an editor with a person who is not a characteristic, with fraud and fraud and fraud.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld this 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 with a legal and acceptable response. If the court fails to speak in its judgment of the evidence affecting the dispute The adversary 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.

She pointed out that the plaintiff had insisted before the court of first instance that the said settlement had not been known to the plaintiff, was not satisfied with it and had not been issued in the legal framework, as well as that it had been issued under a canceled agency, in addition to fraud, fraud and fraud suffered by the plaintiff's brother, but the judgment ignored this defense. Substantive and omitted his examination of the case and scrutinized to the extent necessary, which was similar to deficiencies and breach of the right of defense and the grounds for its elimination on grounds not enough to carry, which must be overturned and referral.