A dispute over a "shed" and labor accommodation

An investor demands a contracting company for 1.2 million dirhams

Federal Supreme referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

Archives

The Federal Supreme Court referred a dispute between an investor and a contracting company, about a debt of 1,292,000 dirhams, to the Court of Appeal for further consideration, as it overturned a ruling that rejected the investor’s lawsuit against the company and its manager.

An investor had filed a lawsuit against a contracting company and its manager, demanding that they return the value of two checks of one million and 292 thousand dirhams with interest.

He said that “he agreed with the defendant in his capacity as a manager and a representative of the defendant company, to complete the contract of building a warehouse and housing workers, but the defendant violated the contract, took his dues, and then handed him the checks as a refundable right to him, but the two checks he received came back from the bank without He spent, due to the lack of balance, what prompted him to file his lawsuit. ”

The Court of First Instance ruled to oblige the defendants, with the claimed amount, the value of the checks together with the interests and expenses, after it was established that the defendants ’indebtedness and the right of recovery from the contracting agreement were monitored.

The Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the first ruling, and again ruled that the case was not accepted, while obliging the plaintiff to pay the expenses, on the evidence that the plaintiff had not followed the performance order stipulated in the bylaw.

The investor appealed the cassation, explaining that the judgment violated the law, and ignored that the lawsuit was initially registered in the case management office, and was brought before the competent court twice by the supervising judge, but the supervising judge referred the case to the competent court, and the competent performance order judge referred it to the trial court that issued the judgment The appellant has declared that the conditions of the payment order are not met, especially after the defendants have disputed the value of the checks, the litigant has submitted documents and counter evidence, and given that the right is not defined and subject to dispute, the conditions of the regular substantive lawsuit are met, and the terms of the payment order are not met.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal, explaining that the lawsuit or the request is a procedural act presented by one of the parties vis-à-vis the other adversary in order to eliminate him with legal protection in the form of a request by the originating judiciary or the deciding judiciary and the binding judiciary, and that the trial court must surround the evidence before it, and that It responds to the substantive defense of the litigants by which the opinion in the case may change, and if the court neglected to speak in its judgment about the evidence affecting the dispute, while the litigant clings to its evidence, and did not examine what was stated in it to indicate that it surrounded the reality of the case in the case, and that it has exhausted everything in it. Its power to reveal the aspect of truth in it, as its ruling shall be minor.

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