The court refused the request for compensation for the cost of their construction

Khaleejia sues her brothers for a garage and a house fence

The court is not obligated to answer the litigants' requests.

From the source

The Ras Al Khaimah Court has decided to reject a lawsuit filed by a Gulf woman against her brothers, in which she demanded that the compensation awarded in a previous case be paid for the incident of damaging a garage and a wall of a house for her without the rest of the heirs, because she built them with her own money.

The lawsuit papers stated that the plaintiff and the defendants had a judgment issued in their interest - as the heirs of their father - to compensate for the incident of destroying the garage and wall of their home in a previous case, but the plaintiff demanded that the value of the compensation awarded to her be spent because she built the garage and the fence from her own money, excluding the rest of the defendant heirs .

And she requested that they be compelled to take an oath and take the oath in case they claim the right to compensation.

In the verdict, the court affirmed that it is decided that every judicial judgment issued by an authority with an authoritative jurisdiction will have the thing ruled from the day of its issuance, and that authenticity prevents litigants from filing a new lawsuit with allegations that contradict what was decided.

It is not permissible for the court that issued the judgment or anyone else to reconsider what has been decided, and has indicated that it is not permissible for a court to have jurisdiction over another judiciary unless it is by the court having jurisdiction to complain about it by one of the legal methods of appeal.

The court added that it is not obligated to answer the litigants what they request from referring the case to the investigation to prove what may be proven with the testimony of witnesses when the case papers contain enough to form its doctrine regarding the facts to be proven or denied, so that the investigation procedure is not productive given the circumstances of the case and what is proven. Where is the evidence.

And it indicated that it rejects the decisive authority of the oath requested by the plaintiff against the defendants, when the court is convinced of the lack of seriousness of the oath because it is not productive in the dispute.

She added that the assessment of the obligations of the oath is subject to the authority of the court when it establishes its judiciary on justifiable reasons.

She explained that the plaintiff’s request was based on an incorrect basis from reality or law, and the judiciary must reject it, and ignore the request to direct the decisive oath of the defendants, as it is not productive in the conflict.

Accordingly, it decided to dismiss the case.

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