Dubai Court rejected the case due to weak documents

A European investor demands 4 children for the debts of their deceased father

"Dubai Appeal" upheld the verdict based on the expert's report.

archival

A European investor demanded four sons and heirs of a deceased (Arab) who was working with him, to return the amount of 441,000 dirhams on a deed stating that their father owed him the amount. After considering the incident upheld the initial ruling.

In detail, a European investor filed a lawsuit in which he demanded to oblige the heirs of an (Arab) person he was working with to return the amount of 441,000 dirhams of the estate funds that had passed to them from their legator.

He based his lawsuit on the fact that under a power of attorney authenticated by him, the father of the heirs received, during his lifetime, a check worth one million and 63 thousand dirhams and cashed it in the interest of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff admitted that he had returned to him before his death the amount of 847,000 dirhams and remained in his possession 441,000 dirhams, and he died before returning it to him, pointing out that his heirs, who are his four sons, opened a file in the Dubai Court to distribute their father's estate among them, which prompted him to file a lawsuit to recover his money that was In the custody of their father, he submitted a photocopy of the power of attorney, and a copy of the check received by the latter.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses and attorneys’ fees, explaining in the merits of the ruling that the plaintiff’s reasons in his claim statement that the amounts paid by the father of the heirs under two checks were not delivered to him, were merely sent statements that had no basis in papers and that he was based on electronic messages exchanged between them, but these messages are not considered evidence of the latter's indebtedness in those amounts, as it was not proven to the court that these electronic conversations were issued by the bequeather, which makes the papers devoid of any evidence that the court can reassure the court.

The investor was not satisfied with the ruling and appealed against it before the Court of Appeal, claiming that he had violated the evidence established in the papers and the failure to cause and breach the right of defense, in light of the fact that the documented document received the amount of the appellant’s inheritance while he was alive, which means that what he mentioned in the lawsuit was not just statements sent as I mentioned The rationale, in light of the fact that the testator received the two checks under a settlement agreement in which he acknowledged receiving them while he was alive, and demanded that the initial ruling be rescinded, and that the amount be awarded to him, or that an accounting expert be delegated to examine the matter and review the documents.

The court decided to assign an accounting expert to discuss the disputes, and the expert’s report concluded that the appellant did not submit compelling documents to support his claim amounting to 441,000 dirhams, and the expertise cannot reach the right to the case in light of the available documents.

For his part, the legal representative of the plaintiff submitted a memorandum commenting on the expert’s report in which he adhered to all his requests, noting that his client provided evidence of his claim and documents proving the receipt of funds, and therefore the burden of the heirs is to prove otherwise.

And stick to his basic demands.

After examining the memoranda, the appellate court concluded that the court preferred to seek the assistance of expertise, and the expert reached a sound conclusion, which the court reassures of the soundness of the foundations on which it was built. Therefore, it rejects the plaintiff’s request to return the case to the same expert or another expert, and affirmed that the preliminary ruling agrees with this consideration, It decided to reject the case and obligate the appellant to pay the expenses.

What the investor has said in the lawsuit are mere statements that have no basis in official papers.

"Emirates Today", via the "Courts" page, receives the consultations and inquiries of its readers to know the legal point of view in it.

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