Abu Dhabi Court ruled not to hear the case

A Gulf man accuses his friend of seizing 200 thousand dirhams from 14 years

The Abu Dhabi Court rejected the lawsuit due to the lapse of 3 years from the knowledge of the creditor against him.

archival

A (Gulf) man accused his friend of seizing the value of a check he had written for him more than 14 years ago, in order to deliver its value to a third party, while the Abu Dhabi Family and Civil and Administrative Claims Court rejected the case after three years had passed from the day the creditor learned of his right.

In the details, a (Gulf) man filed a lawsuit against an old friend, demanding that he pay him an amount of 200,000 dirhams and a material and moral compensation of 50,000 dirhams, and oblige him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney fees, indicating that he and a person had a commercial debt, He handed his friend (the defendant) a check of 200,000 dirhams to pay this debt, but he cashed the check and took the money for himself, and when the defendant demanded the amount, he delayed and did not take the initiative to pay.

The man attached a document to his claim, which is a photocopy of a check drawn on one of the banks operating in the country, an Abu Dhabi commercial appeal ruling, a bank account statement, and pictures of conversations via the social networking program (WhatsApp).

While the defendant submitted a reply memorandum in which he argued that the court had no jurisdiction in terms of the fact that the dispute was commercial and that the case had not been heard due to the passage of time, and he appealed for forgery to sign the receipt of the check.

The court stated in the ruling’s merits that the defendant had argued that the court had no jurisdiction over the case because the dealings between the parties to the litigation were commercial, noting that it was clear to the court that the relationship between the parties to the litigation was not commercial, but between a creditor and debtor, and the defendant did not provide evidence that there is a commercial relationship, The matter with which the court is competent to hear the case, and this defense becomes based on no basis from fact or law.

Regarding the plea not to hear the case due to the passage of time, the court indicated that it is decided according to the Civil Transactions Law “A lawsuit arising from a beneficial act shall not be heard after the lapse of three years from the day the creditor became aware of his right to recourse, and in all cases the lawsuit shall not be heard after the lapse of 15 years from the day in which the right of recourse arose.

She clarified that what is proven from reading the papers is that the check withdrawn from the plaintiff's balance was drawn on June 2008, and the plaintiff admitted in his statement of claim that he wrote that check on the same date to the defendant to hand it over to another person, and thus it has passed since the day when the creditor learned of his right to recourse more than Three years, that is, after the period set for hearing the case has passed, and the court ruled not to hear the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

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