The consumer refused to pay the amount owed on him

A legal dispute over an electricity and water bill

The Federal Court overturned the “appeal” ruling.

Archives

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that rejected the lawsuit of a federal government agency regarding a customer's claim for an electricity and water bill, as the court confirmed the federal judiciary's jurisdiction to hear the case, according to what was stipulated in the state constitution.

In the details, a government service agency filed a lawsuit against its client, demanding that he pay it an amount of 6827.29 dirhams with the expenses, as it stated that it is a government agency entrusted with providing water and electricity at the state level, and the defendant submitted to it to open an account to activate a consumer service to benefit from the service. For his request and the amount of the claim was arranged with him, but he refused to pay according to his bill despite the claim.

The Federal Court of First Instance ruled that it had no state jurisdiction and referred the case to a local court for consideration, and the Court of Appeal confirmed it on the basis that the defendant’s domicile was in a district of local courts, so the plaintiff challenged this ruling in cassation.

The plaintiff said that the ruling violated the law and was wrong in its application, as he had decided to uphold the appealed ruling that the court of first instance had no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the one competent to hear it is another court of first instance, explaining his judiciary that the jurisdiction to hear civil and commercial disputes rests with the court of the defendant’s domicile, thus violating the text Article 102 of the Constitution is defective and must be revoked.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, noting that when the constitution has entrusted judicial competence to the federal judiciary, only a constitutional text may take away this jurisdiction from it, and the intention of the legislator from Article 102 of the constitution was that the litigations of disputes in which the union - that is, the state - is a party in it equally These lawsuits were civil, commercial, or administrative by the Federal Judiciary alone, regardless of the nature of the lawsuit, and that the lesson in determining the jurisdiction of the court is to consider the cases in which the Union is a party to the main characteristic of the litigant as a public administration - that is, the state - and that this criterion is the only one in determining The jurisdiction of the court competent to hear the case.

She indicated that the plaintiff is a federal government entity, and therefore the local judicial authorities are not competent to hear cases in which the union is a party, and the state jurisdiction is held for consideration by one of the Union courts, and in the present case, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of First Instance shall be terminated to cassation of judgment and referral.

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