A service agent seizes a massage center for 27 months

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld a judgment of the court of first instance requiring a service agent to pay the owner of a massage and personal care center an amount of one million and 900 thousand dirhams in compensation for his unlawful seizure of the center for a period of two years, three months and five days, and the court ruled to reject the defendant's appeal. She refused to increase the amount of compensation demanded by the plaintiff in her appeal.

The details of the case are due to the fact that a service agent seized a massage and relaxation center from its owner and obtained its revenues for a period of more than two years, which prompted its owner to file a lawsuit requesting compensation.

She indicated that she had established a massage and relaxation center, personal care and cupping therapy, "a section for women and another for men", and equipped it to work, and the license was in the name of the second defendant as a service agent, and that she took over the rental of the center from the owner of the property "the first defendant" and paid the fee of 230 thousand dirhams annually After preparing the center, the two defendants stormed the center and stole its ownership from it, and it remained in their possession for two years and three months, until they recovered it according to a court ruling that established her ownership of the center and the commercial license related to it.

The report of the accounting expert, who was appointed by the court, stated that the relationship of the plaintiff, with the second defendant, is that the center was licensed in his name, in exchange for an agency that he released to its actual owner, the "plaintiff", and canceled the agency after six months, indicating that the agent helped the property owner to seize the center He placed his hand and remained in his possession until its actual owner was able to take it back after the litigation procedures between them had been exhausted.

The report indicated that the value of compensation for lost earnings during the period in which the defendants are in possession of them are outside the scope of expert work and are pertinent to the court's justice, noting that the average profit for one year has reached 736 thousand and 389 dirhams, at 61 thousand and 366 dirhams per month.

The defense of the first defendant presented a memorandum in which he confirmed that his client is merely the owner of a property and rented the center, and the plaintiff signed the contract in her capacity as an attorney. The plaintiff is entitled to his client from the total value of the contract rental with the bond to return it from the bank, and the implication is that he was unable to pay it.

The second defendant’s attorney submitted a commentary note which included that the preliminary judgment was issued in his absence and his knowledge did not relate with certainty to the subject matter of the lawsuit nor to the expert report prepared in his absence, and I sought, at its conclusion, to return the office to the experience with the same trust in order to present the judgments and documents he has in order to reach the right of the case.

The court of the first degree in presence ordered the second defendant to pay the plaintiff compulsory compensation for all material and moral damages and lost earnings of one million and 900 thousand dirhams, and obligate the first defendant to return to the plaintiff the originals of the checks or consider them as null, and to oblige the second defendant to pay the fees and expenses of the case, and to refuse anything other than that. Of requests.

The verdict was not accepted by the second defendant, so he appealed against him by appealing the appealed ruling that it was against the law, as the court based its judgment on the result of the expertise delegated in the case and decided compensation based on the expert’s opinion and an expected profit rate, while the appellant, the “original plaintiff,” lodged an appeal against her. The ruling is to increase her compensation amount.

For its part, the Court of Appeal affirmed that it is decided that the matter court has the authority to understand the reality in the case, search for evidence and documents presented and weigh what it is satisfied with its preference, and it is also entitled to rely on its judgment on the report of the expert who appointed him whenever it is satisfied with it and considered that he discussed all points of conflict in the case And the court ruled accepting the two appeals in form, rejecting them in substance, upholding the appealed judgment, and obliging each appellant to pay the fees and expenses of his appeal.

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