An (Arab) resident did not expect that his blind trust in his two friends, the people of his town, would expose him to the loss of four gold bars, an earring and two phones. He handed them over to his two friends from his town, to deliver them to his family during their travel to their home, where he booked tickets for them from his own account, before he discovered that he had been exposed For treachery and fraud, after the two friends seized the movables, and did not leave the state.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, demanding that his two friends be compelled to return what was handed over to them, and accordingly the Ras Al Khaimah Civil Court decided to oblige the two defendants to pay the plaintiff 68 thousand and 369 dirhams, the value of the gold fixed in the two invoices submitted by the plaintiff, and other requests were rejected.
In detail, the case papers stated that the plaintiff handed the defendant movables, consisting of four gold bars, gold earrings and two Samsung phones, to deliver them to his country, as they are from his hometown, and he was unable to travel due to a problem related to his residence, and he booked travel tickets for them from his own account, but The defendants took the movables and fled and did not leave the country, so a complaint was opened against them in the Public Prosecution, and they were accused of embezzlement, and a judgment was issued in absentia against them, fining them 20 thousand dirhams, and obliging them to pay the due fee.
The lawsuit papers added that the defendants decided that they were unable to travel, and handed over the movables to two other people to deliver to the plaintiff’s family, but they seized them for themselves, and it was stated in the operative part of the Ras Al Khaimah Civil Court ruling that the plaintiff amended his requests, to oblige the two defendants to pay him the movables at the value of 136 thousand and 838 dirhams instead of returning it to him, and he submitted two invoices for the value of gold at 68 thousand and 369 dirhams, and referred the judge supervising the management of the case, so that the plaintiff proves his claim and the value of the rest of the movables and the two phones, as the plaintiff insisted on requests without bringing witnesses or documents indicating the value of the gold, the two phones and the movables.
The ruling indicated that the defendants admitted to receiving the movables and handing them over to two other people, who seized them, and did not bring witnesses or provide a document for handing over the movables to others, which would mean that the plaintiff’s request was based on a valid basis of fact and law, within the limits of what the plaintiff presented. Documents indicating the value of the gold delivered to the defendants.
And she explained that the court is not obligated to direct the litigants towards submitting documents proving their claim, and therefore this does not affect their acknowledgment of all the purposes mentioned in the statement of claim, and their acknowledgment to hand over the items to others without bringing witnesses or presenting the delivery deed, which requires the judiciary to oblige the defendants to pay the plaintiff 68 thousand and 369 dirhams, the value of gold fixed in the two invoices submitted by the plaintiff, which the defendants acknowledged receiving, and the rest of the requests were rejected.
#Arab #loses #gold #bars #phones #due #betrayal #friends