The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims has upheld a ruling of the Court of First Instance rejecting the case of a young man who accused a girl of defrauding him and obtaining 74,000 dirhams after she deluded him into the existence of a company in which he could invest his money and generate greater profits than what he deposited in it. a topic.
In the details, a young man filed a lawsuit against a girl, in which he demanded the ruling to oblige her to pay him an amount of 74,000 dirhams and also oblige her to pay fees and expenses, noting that the defendant deluded him into the existence of an investment company, which would generate profits for him twice the amount deposited in it, which called him to hand her an amount The claim was made in two installments through the bank account of one of his friends, but he was surprised that there were no profits, and when asking her to return the amount she procrastinated.
The court of first instance decided to reject the case and obligate the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses, based on the fact that the papers did not have a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. of the methods of proof.
And since this judiciary was not accepted by the plaintiff, it instituted his appeal, demanding the annulment of the appealed judgment and the judiciary once again obligating the defendant to pay an amount of 74,000 dirhams, and in precaution, directing the decisive oath to the defendant, claiming on the appealed judgment that the judgment violated what is established in the documents of transferring The amount subject of the lawsuit was made in two payments in favor of the defendant on its account number through a third party, which can be brought and his testimony heard, as this testimony changed the face of opinion in the dispute, and he also erred when he overlooked the realization of his request in his closing memorandum by directing the decisive oath to the defendant.
During the consideration of the case, the respondent attended in person and reviewed the wording of the oath directed to her, and stated that the agreement to invest the transfer amount was between her and another person, and there was no agreement to invest the amount between her and the appellant, and that the appellant had nothing to do with that. Against it, in the form, “I swear by Almighty God that no agreement occurred between me and the appellant regarding the investment of the claimed funds, amounting to 74,000 dirhams, and that the person with whom I agreed to invest is the person who transferred me the sum of 74,000 dirhams to invest in an investment company, and that I do not owe any sums In favor of the appellant, and God is a witness to what I say.”
For its part, the court made it clear in the merits of its judgment that the appellant had requested to direct the decisive oath to the respondent (the defendant) in the following form: “I swear to God Almighty that I did not receive the amount of 74 dirhams on my bank account from the account of the plaintiff “friend of the appellant” in two installments, according to the prior agreement Between me and the appellant regarding the investment of the amount, and God is a witness to what I say.” The court decided, pursuant to the license granted to it under the Evidence Law, to amend the formula presented by the appellant so that its guidance would be clear and precise so that it focuses on the incident that is required to be sworn in, thus resolving the dispute over the payment of the required amount.
The court indicated that the appellant had taken the oath in the last form, and thus had resolved the issue of the case by denying the respondent that there was an agreement between it and the appellant to invest the claimed funds, and therefore the appellant was not entitled to prove what he claimed of the funds owed by the respondent with any other evidence, Considering that the evidence and the decisive oath are two opposites that do not meet, and accordingly, the present appeal becomes without a valid document, which must be rejected.
#deluded #profits #greater #capital. #young #man #accused #girl #seizing #thousand #dirhams