The "veto" settled the dispute between the two parties

A dispute over 16 million dirhams leads two friends to court

The “Cassation” rejected the appeal against the “appeal” ruling. ■ Archives

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation rejected a challenge filed by a (Gulf) person who demanded to compel his friend (Gulf) to return the sum of 21 million and 508 thousand dirhams, the proceeds of the latter's sale of real estate and land owned by the contestant under the agencies granted to him, and the court had ruled in a previous lawsuit obliging the appellant to return 16 million and 300 One thousand dirhams to his friend, the value of a personal loan that the appellant refuses to acknowledge.

The details of the case are due to the fact that the respondent filed a lawsuit with the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance to compel the appellant to pay an amount of 16 million and 449 thousand dirhams, on the basis that, in view of the friendship between the two parties, he dealt in the field of real estate investment, but that the defendant was exposed to financial hardship that prompted him to borrow from him an amount 16 million and 449 thousand dirhams, and the court of first instance rejected the case, and after the plaintiff appealed the ruling, the Court of Appeal delegated an expert in the case and submitted a report in which it concluded that the sums transferred from the appellant’s current account to the appellant’s current account were 16 million and 650 thousand dirhams, and that the sums paid It was transferred from the appellant's account to the appellant's account of 216 thousand dirhams, and by settling the account between the two parties and clearing the appellant, the appellant is entitled to 16 million and 434 thousand dirhams.

After the appellant took the complementary oath that the sums transferred from his account to the appellee’s account were by way of a loan and had not paid them, the Court of Appeal decided to oblige the appellant to pay the said amount on a bond (that the appellant issued orders to the bank to transfer money from his account to the appellee’s account, totaling 16 One million and 650 thousand dirhams, and the latter did not deny the transfer of these sums in his account, except that he claimed that the appellant was his agent in buying and selling real estate owned by him, and that what he transferred from the sums of sale of these real estate, and then the burden of proof shifted to the appellant to prove the validity of his claim) .

He appealed against him in cassation, and the court rejected the appeal, and the previous rulings settled the dispute between the two parties regarding the debt of each of them to the other and conducted accountability between them and deducted what was transferred by the appellant in the appeal presented to the contested against him and obligated him to pay what was left of his owed, after it excluded what he held from the price of the sale of the lands that were In his property under the powers granted to the contested against him.

The Court of Cassation clarified that the plaintiff’s requests to recover the sums of money that the respondent received on behalf of the appellant, totaling 21 million and 508 thousand dirhams, as a result of the sale of real estate and lands owned by the respondent with the knowledge of the respondent under the agencies that granted them to him, and liquid funds transferred to him for real estate investment on behalf of the appellant. The court ruled not to accept the appeal and obligated the appellant to pay the fee and expenses and an amount of 1000 dirhams of attorney fees for the respondent and ordered the confiscation of the insurance.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news