A private school demands a teacher and her husband for 123 thousand dirhams

Al Ain Court of First Instance rejected a lawsuit filed by a private school against a teacher and her husband, demanding that they pay her an amount of 123 thousand and 114 dirhams.

In the details, a private school filed a lawsuit against a school teacher, and her husband, demanding that they pay her an amount of 123 thousand and 114 dirhams, in arrears of school fees for their children, while obligating them to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney fees, noting that the first defendant is the father of the children registered at the school. The second defendant is the students' mother and she worked at the school and took advantage of that and refrained from paying school fees until the defendants owed the amount of the claim.

During the consideration of the case, the two defendants submitted a memorandum in which they held that the case was not accepted for filing an irrelevant case, as the school is under judicial liquidation by virtue of a court ruling, and the second defendant indicated that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff was malicious to pressure her to waive her labor dues, while the present requested For the plaintiff to suspend the action pending the appointment of a judicial liquidator on the plaintiff company. 

For its part, the court made it clear in the rationale of its ruling that the plaintiff school is subject to the lawsuit under liquidation and is represented by the judicial liquidator appointed by a court ruling, and the plaintiff’s requests were to obligate the two defendants to pay the tuition fees for their children, despite the existence of a judicial ruling to liquidate it and appoint a judicial liquidator for it to be responsible for its administration and representation before the judiciary. Noting that the amount of money claimed in the lawsuit is tuition fees that are collected and included in the school's funds, with the effect that the plaintiff's requests fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial liquidator appointed by the court after the ruling to liquidate the company as one of the effects of the liquidation ruling, and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to file her present case The plaintiff does not have the capacity to quarrel and sue, and what the plaintiff company’s attorney insisted on requesting suspension of the lawsuit pending until the appointment of a judicial liquidator, because the plaintiff instituted the case after a judicial ruling was issued to liquidate her and appoint a judicial liquidator on her, the court ruled not to accept the case to file it without The one who has described and obligated the plaintiffFees and expenses.

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