The Dubai Civil Court of Appeal ruled to overturn a preliminary ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by the owner of a commercial establishment against an employee working for him who received a loan of 55,000 dirhams, due to him going through financial hardship and refusing to repay the debt. The court ruled to oblige the defendant to pay the amount because he did not appear to take the decisive oath.
In detail, the owner of a commercial establishment in Dubai appealed a preliminary ruling rejecting a lawsuit filed by the establishment against an employee, demanding that the latter pay the company 55 thousand dirhams with a legal interest of 9% from the date of the announcement, on the basis of saying that there is a friendly relationship between him and the defendant employee. Accordingly, he agreed to lend him an amount of 55 thousand dirhams from the company’s funds due to the latter’s financial difficulty.
The plaintiff said that he gave the amount to his friend as a debt, in the form of a check drawn on the company's account, but the defendant refused to return the money, and continued to procrastinate and evade payment, which prompted the first to assign the creditor institution to file a lawsuit against him.
After examining the case by the civil court of first instance, it issued a decision to end the dispute in accordance with the text of Article 132 of the Civil Procedure Code, and ruled to reject the case and obligate the plaintiff company to pay the expenses and fees.
For his part, the company owner was not satisfied with the first-instance ruling, and appealed against it, calling out the error in applying the law and corruption in the reasoning, demanding that the defendant be obliged to return the amount. He provided pictures of WhatsApp messages exchanged between them, showing the loan request, and then more than one request for it. He was given a deadline to pay, but he did not adhere to this, despite his repeated promises.
The plaintiff asked the court to oblige the defendant to take a decisive oath in the form, “I swear to God Almighty that I did not receive the amount of 55 thousand dirhams from the owner of the institution as a loan, and that the check drawn on the bank that was cashed by me was not as a loan, without me writing a bond for him to receive this amount.” And I am free from it.”
After examining the appeal, the Court of Appeal decided to direct the decisive oath in that form to the defendant, but he did not appear at the session scheduled for that, which prompted the court to reserve the case for judgment.
The court explained in the merits of its ruling that, according to Article 57 of the Evidence Law, the decisive oath was prescribed to be a refuge for its owner when he lacks other means of proof that the law authorizes to be presented to prove the validity of what he claims, and it is the property of the opponent, not the judge, and the judge must respond to the request to direct it whenever its conditions are met. That it relates to the person to whom it is directed, is decisive in the dispute before the court, and does not violate public order or morals, and on the condition that the person requesting it is not arbitrary in his request, noting that the plaintiff company resorted to the decisive oath in this case because there is no receipt for the subject check. The dispute, and the court ruled to cancel the appealed ruling and order again to oblige him to pay the plaintiff an amount of 55 thousand dirhams, with a legal interest of 5% from the date of the claim.
#employee #evades #repaying #loan #thousand #dirhams