A woman sues a man who hires him to invest her money

The Federal Supreme Council supported the appeal of the “appeal” ruling.

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling that obligated a person to pay one million 730 thousand and 400 dirhams for the benefit of a woman and authorized him to invest her money in real estate, but he seized it, according to her claim.

In the details, a woman filed a commercial lawsuit, demanding that a person be obligated to pay her an amount of 882 thousand and 900 dirhams, the principal sums given to him for the sake of investment, 1.8 million dirhams for the property price paid from her, 95 thousand dirhams on property proceeds, and 222 thousand dirhams in compensation with Legal interest of 12%.

She said in her lawsuit that she “agreed with the defendant to invest her money in real estate, and in implementation of that she made a set of transfers amounting to 882 thousand and 900 dirhams, and he bought her a property, and deluded her that the price was 1.8 million dirhams, which she paid with a check, and registered it in their name by half, despite not paying any An amount of the price of his purchase, then she assigned it to manage the property and dispose of it, so he rented it at an annual rent of 95 thousand dirhams, and seized the proceeds without any right, then sold it without her knowledge, and he did not hand her the price of the sale or part of it, then I was surprised that he bought the same property for 1.5 million dirhams And he seized the difference, which is 300 thousand dirhams. ”

A court of first instance ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of one million 730 thousand and 400 dirhams, with interest of 5%, and the court of appeal confirmed it.

This court did not accept the defendant, so he appealed against him in cassation, considering that the verdict was wrong in applying the law, its interpretation and interpretation, and a breach of the right of defense.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that the defendant insisted before the trial court not accepting the lawsuit for prescription, in accordance with the Federal Civil Transactions Law, as the creditor’s lawsuit of what he performed in favor of a debtor related to the lawsuit arising from the beneficial act is not heard after the lapse of three years, and that the passage of Four years from the contract to purchase the property to the date of the claim claim gives him the right to this payment, but the judgment did not achieve this essential defense, which is one of the causes of the right’s expiration, which requires the judgment to be revoked with the referral without the need to discuss the remaining reasons for the appeal.

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