The "appeal" was dismissed

A company owner asks an employee to return 60,000 dirhams in housing rent

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal rejected a lawsuit filed by the owner of a company asking his employee to return 60,000 dirhams that he borrowed, due to the lack of proof of the debt against the employee, indicating that the employee provided evidence that the amount is a housing rent, explaining that the check is originally considered a payment instrument and is not considered evidence of indebtedness. The plaintiff must otherwise establish evidence.

The details of the case refer to the accusation of the owner of an aluminum company, an employee, of borrowing 60 thousand dirhams under two checks, each of 30 thousand dirhams, which were withdrawn from his account and his wife's account, and the amount was not returned.

While the employee confirmed during the investigations and the case sessions, that the lawsuit was malicious, explaining that he did not borrow the amount, but it was an initiative by the owner of the company to provide him with a marital home, and there was no agreement on his return, explaining that the company owner asked him to settle his dues and canceled his visa and did not pay him an end bonus Serving for six years, which forced him to file a labor lawsuit, and he was ordered to pay 15,000 dirhams according to a reconciliation agreement between them, while the owner of the company insisted that the amount was by way of a loan, and that he was not obligated to provide the employee with housing.

The court of first instance ruled to reject the case, noting that the owner of the company did not provide evidence that he had loaned the employee the amount of the claim, and that the case papers were free from the employee’s request to borrow the amount, as well as without a document obliging the employee to return the amount, indicating that the employee’s receipt of the amount is based on two checks. It indicates that it was a loan, and that the settlement between the two parties based on the labor lawsuit did not indicate the amount of the loan.

The owner of the company appealed the ruling, demanded its annulment and the judiciary of it with his requests, and reserve demanded that the case be referred to investigation to hear the testimony of employees to indicate whether they live with the employee, and that the employee did not provide anything that negates his indebtedness, and that he did not promise him any amounts as a housing allowance.

Whereas the Court of Appeal affirmed in its ruling that the check is originally considered a payment instrument, and that the plaintiff has otherwise to establish evidence, and that the request for referral to investigation is not the right of the litigant, the court has to answer it, pointing out that the employee denies the loan and that he has provided proof of the payment of the amount as a rent for the house, And that the settlement report that was made between the two parties regarding labor dues, according to which the owner of the company paid the dues, and the court did not request the clearing procedure to deduct the amount owed to him from the amount of the claim, and the court decided to accept the appeal in form and rejected it in substance, uphold the appealed judgment and obligate the owner of the company to pay the expenses.

The Court: A check is a payment instrument and not evidence of indebtedness.

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