He requested an expert to determine his share of the remuneration disbursed in 2017.

Cancellation of a ruling granting a former board member 532 thousand dirhams

The appellant was accused of financial irregularities.

archival

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi upheld a ruling of the Court of Appeal to cancel the obligation of an association to pay a former board member 532,144 dirhams, his share of the profit reward.

The plaintiff had filed a lawsuit, to demand the assignment of an accounting expert to determine his share of the remuneration paid in 2017 to the members of the association’s board of directors by the general assembly, noting that he was among the members of the board before its dissolution and the appointment of another board.

The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to pay an amount of 532,144 dirhams.

It based its ruling on that the plaintiff instituted a suit to demand the amount as profits, and supported that claim with a statement that the general assembly of the defendant decided to grant the members of its board of directors a bonus of 10% of the net profit, equivalent to six million, 385 thousand and 735 dirhams, noting that the evidence in the papers is that the number of members The Board of Directors has 12 members, including the plaintiff.

The court pointed out that the defendant did not appeal against him, and the dispute was based on the existence of financial issues between them, which are still being investigated, but it did not deny the plaintiff's entitlement to the reward, which must obligate it to pay him his share of the profits.

The defendant was not satisfied with the verdict and appealed it, and the court decided to annul the appealed ruling and the judiciary again to return the appealed case before the Court of First Instance. The appellant (original plaintiff) appealed against the ruling, and the appellant deposited a memorandum of reply, requesting that the appeal be rejected.

In its ruling, the court indicated that, according to the Civil Procedures Law, when one of the litigants raises a dispute subordinate to the subject matter of the litigation, a decision in it is necessary to rule on the case, noting that the court of first instance decided to suspend the case, commenting on a document that the appellant was accused of committing financial irregularities in the event. His work as a member of the association that is being challenged, and that the subject matter of the lawsuit is related to the appellant’s claim for the rights of the appellee, represented in the reward.

If this judgment is not appealed on time, he shall have the authority of the res judicata, and the court that issued it is not entitled to rescind it and reconsider the subject matter of the dispute, unless evidence of the execution of the stay judgment is presented to it.

If the appealed judgment adhered to this consideration, and decided to cancel the appealed judgment by obliging the respondent to pay the amount in question and the judiciary again to return the appealed case before the court of first instance, then he has adhered to the correct law.

The court ruled to reject the appeal.

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