The Federal Supreme Court affirmed that the interest on bank facilities from loans or letters of guarantee is calculated at the price agreed upon during the term of the loan. It must be deducted firstly from interest, as an appendix of the debt, then the rest of it will be deducted from the withdrawals that represent the principal of the debt, and that the remainder of the withdrawals without payment represents the remaining balance free of interest, and the right to claim the interest thereof until the payment is complete.
An appeals judgment in the interest of two banks overturned requiring two clients to return bank facilities with compound interest, and decided to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
In details, two banks have filed a lawsuit against two clients, requiring them to pay them in solidarity an amount of US $ 41,529,721, or its equivalent in UAE dirhams, and its interest is 12% annually from the due date until full payment, and the correctness of the reservation reservation number 6431 for the year 2018 Sharjah.
The plaintiffs said that they «provided the defendants with banking facilities, and monitored the amount claimed, and for their failure to pay, they took the precautionary reservation».
The defendants filed their counterclaim against the plaintiffs by requesting the ruling to terminate the deposit contract included in the mortgage agreement, and by proving the acquittal of the second plaintiff in return.
The court of first instance ruled, after delegating a banking expert, to compel the first defendant to pay the claimants the amount claimed at an interest of 5% per annum from the date of the filing of the case until the completion of the payment, the correctness of the provisional attachment, and reject the case in relation to the second defendant, and in the opposite case reject it, and a court ruled The appeal supported the first judgment, and the defendants did not accept this ruling, and we appealed it.
The defendant said, that she stuck to her defense before the trial court in both degrees of her objections to the report of the expert appointed in the case, that he relied on total account statements submitted by the first contested bank, did not include the discounted checks deposited with him and the amounts deducted from her bank accounts, and that the bank statements included Interest calculated in a complex way, while it had to be recalculated in a simple way from the date of stopping payment until the filing of the lawsuit.
This appeal was upheld by the Federal Supreme Court, explaining that it was decided in the court’s jurisdiction that the court relied in its judiciary on the report of the expert delegated in the lawsuit and taken into consideration on his reasons that the expert had made his statement at the point of disagreement between the two parties, and he demonstrated them with unjust reasons that lead to His conclusion.
She pointed out that the defendant held before the Court of Appeal the incoming defense aspects, objecting to the report of the expert requesting the recalculation of interest in a simple way and returning the tax office to the expert to discuss its objections, while the expert report mentioned the value of the interest in a total amount without disclosing the method of calculating it simple or complex and whether He had committed itself in calculating the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in this regard or not, and the supplementary report did not include a response to the defendant's objections received, and if the judgment contested with this report found that he included a response to those objections and contrary to the constant in the report, and referred to it in that , The judgment is defective in the null and void, and the violation of the fixed in the papers, which must be reversed, provided that the veto is referral.
- The court confirmed that the deposits in the loan account must be deducted from the interest.