The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that obligated two partners to pay the share of their third partner in the company and remove it from it, deciding to refer the case to the Appeals Court for further consideration, explaining that the ruling calculated the plaintiff's share on the basis of the company's debts with others and the inventory of goods, without settling the account between them.
In the details, an investor filed a lawsuit against two partners of him in a company specialized in advertising, calling for the ruling to impose custody on the company, remove his first partner from that company, and assign a mathematical expert to inventory the company's accounts and show their profits.
He said that he and his two partners established the company, with a 24% stake in it, the first defendant 25%, and the second 51%, but that the defendant expelled him from the company.
The court appointed a mathematical expert who presented his report, and the plaintiff modified his requests to remove the first defendant, and obligated the defendants to pay his share of one million and 923 thousand dirhams, and the defendant filed a counter-claim by requesting the original plaintiff be removed as a partner from the company.
The first instance court ruled to reject the plaintiff’s lawsuit, and remove it from the company, then the Court of Appeal decided to amend the verdict by requiring the defendants to pay the plaintiff an amount of 991,000 dirhams, the value of his share in the company, and supporting the first ruling in otherwise.
The defendant was not satisfied with the ruling, and we appealed it to the veto, stating that “the ruling violated the law and erred in its application, as it stipulated that the plaintiff’s share of the company’s debts be with its clients, whereas those debts were not yet collected from the customers who owe it, and some debts are bad. Collecting them, and they objected to the report of the delegated expert for not filtering the account between the partners and determining the share of each of them after calculating the losses and profits, and the court did not respond to their request, which defects the judgment and requires its reversal ».
The Supreme Federal Court upheld this appeal, confirming that the appeal judgment ruled for the plaintiff in the amount ruled, based on the expert’s report, while this report did not count the losses and profits of the company, until the day the lawsuit was filed, and was limited to calculating the debts owed by the company to customers and the value of the inventory of goods, And without referring to the collection of these debts or not, and the ruling took this report as a basis for spending it, which defects it with what must be canceled and referral.
The “appeal” provided that the two partners pay 991,000 dirhams to the third.