The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that obligated two persons to pay two million and 135,000 dirhams, in the interest of a merchant, the value of mobile phones, and decided to refer the case to the Appeals Court for further consideration, on the document of the court’s refusal to direct the decisive oath to the merchant to receive the claimed amount.
In the details, the plaintiff filed a commercial lawsuit, requesting that two people in solidarity be obligated to pay two million and 135,000 dirhams, with an annual interest of 12%.
He said in his lawsuit that “as a result of commercial transactions between them, the second defendant issued him checks for the value of the debt, which were bounced without balance, filed a report on them, and the drawer was convicted of a final criminal ruling.”
The court of first instance ruled to obligate the defendants in solidarity with their performance of the plaintiff in the amount of two million and 135 thousand dirhams, with an annual interest of 5% until full payment was made, and the Court of Appeal confirmed it.
The defendants were not satisfied with this ruling, and we appealed it to the cassation, as their defense stated that the ruling violated the law and violated the right to defense, as they requested that the decisive oath be directed to the plaintiff, as long as it belonged to them, and related to the merits of the case, but the court rejected the request with an unjustified reason.
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that directing the decisive oath is a right for the opponent, the court must answer it to request its direction whenever it meets its requirements that it was not contrary to public order or morals and focused on an incident related to the person to whom it was directed, and in which the applicant indicated the accuracy and in clear terms the facts that he wants to take the opponent's opponent It is crucial to the fundamental issue that leads to ruling in the requests, whether negatively or positively, and that the judge’s right to prevent her being directed is only in one case and if he has - justified reasons for her certain papers - that her requester is arbitrary in directing it.
She pointed out that the constant of the papers is that the defendants paid to the trial court by having paid the value of the mobile phones that they bought from the plaintiff, and that the checks in question are written out, according to transfers and disbursement of sums according to checks in favor of the latter, and their numbers and value are fixed according to what is used from a disclosure image The defendant’s first bank account, as well as checks, including the plaintiff’s disbursement of its value from the bank itself, receipt of receipt, and deposits from the second defendant, who, in the event of not taking it, requested a right of the plaintiff to deny receiving it, and the court followed the delegated experience that said that the protesting documents By the defendant They do not have a say in the proof, because they do not benefit from the departure of the three checks that are the subject of the claim, and refused to direct the decisive oath to the one who is being challenged against it, which must be partially reversed in this regard with the referral without the need to discuss the rest of what was inferred.