The Court: Resorting to the judiciary to defend the right is a legitimate matter

The “appeal” refuses to compensate an investor whose partner has accused him of embezzlement

The "court" rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance ruling.

Archives

The Court of Appeal in Abu Dhabi upheld the ruling issued by the Court of First Instance, the judge refusing to compensate an (Arab) investor whose partner accused him of waste and embezzlement.

The details of the case are due to the fact that the complainant and the defendant were joined together by a partnership in (a coffee shop), and the defendant accused the complainant of misappropriating and misappropriating his money, and the trial ended with acquittal according to a final ruling.

The complainant filed a lawsuit in which his former partner demanded that an amount of 100 thousand dirhams pay him material and moral compensation with fees and expenses, explaining that he caused him material and moral damage, which was the loss of a job opportunity that was presented to him, and the delay in transferring his family's residency and registering children in schools, in addition to To defamation of his reputation among his family and neighbors and the detention he was subjected to pending the case, while the defendant denied during the investigations the maliciousness and abuse of the report.

A court of first instance ruled to dismiss the case, and (the plaintiff) appealed the judgment, denouncing him for deficiency and prejudice to his material and moral rights, and indicating that the elements of the damages he suffered included the cancellation of his residency, payment of sums of up to 10 thousand dirhams to assign an expert to prepare an advisory report and appoint lawyers, and that he borrowed from His acquaintances for the sustenance of his family, and he was subjected to more embarrassment and psychological oppression, and at the conclusion of his requests, he sought the court to cancel the appealed judgment and rule him with his previous requests.

While the Court of Appeal confirmed that the documents confirmed that the defendant had informed the complainant that he had misappropriated the revenues of (a coffee shop), and that the revenues were transferred to his account through his smartphone, and he submitted an advisory report and a number of documents that were not taken by the misdemeanor court that ruled acquittal, taking the expert’s report. The person appointed by him and who did not conclude that the embezzlement was proven, and therefore the innocence building was of doubt and insufficient evidence derived from the advisory report submitted by the appellant.

It stated that the papers indicate that the defendant struggled to prove the embezzlement against the complainant and appealed to the acquittal, as well as the appeal of the Public Prosecution, which was convinced that the accusation was proven against the complainant.

The court affirmed that the right to complain, report crimes, and resort to the judiciary to defend the right protected by law is legitimate, but on condition that the person does not abuse this right.

She explained that the circumstances and circumstances surrounding the incident do not indicate that there is evidence of recklessness or haste in reporting by the defendant, so it is concluded from the sum of this and that that the defendant used his right to report and complain just as the complainant used his right, and therefore the error was not proven in any way. And the court ruled rejecting the appeal and upholding the judgment of the court of first instance.

The complainant demanded to oblige his former partner to pay him 100 thousand dirhams in material and moral compensation.

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