Dubai Court returns 685,000 dirhams to a woman

The civil court of first instance in Dubai ordered a financial company to pay an amount of 700,000 Saudi riyals, or the equivalent of 685,000 dirhams, to a (Arab) client, who deposited the amount with the company for the purpose of converting it into Emirates currency . And that she has her manager who she can not reach and does not answer her calls.

In detail, an Arab woman filed a civil lawsuit in which she demanded a financial company, its owner and employees to pay her an amount of 700,000 Saudi riyals or equivalent in dirhams and legal interest from the date of the legal claim and in return for attorneys’ fees.

She based her lawsuit on the fact that she went to the company with her friend in possession of 700,000 Saudi riyals and asked the fourth defendant (an employee working as treasurer) to transfer the amount from the riyal to the dirham.

After the agreed time, the plaintiff went back to the company to receive the amount, but she was surprised that the employee informed her that the transfer was not possible and that she was waiting for her manager to return to give her power of attorney to repay the amount. to its owner and asked her to review it at a later date.

The plaintiff stated that she went and returned again to the employee, who told her that the amount was not in the company cashier and that the manager seized it and fled and that she tried unsuccessfully to communicate with him. She received the amount. but she made it herself, and made sure of its authenticity, and deposited it in the treasury of the company.

The civil court appointed an expert to examine the memory of the camera located on the spot, and the plaintiff was seen mingling with a man with a handbag in his hand, and he took bundles of money out of it and gave them to the employee, who took it out and then got up.

For its part, the Court stated in its reasoning that Article 318 of the Civil Transactions Act states that no one is entitled to take another person’s money without a legitimate reason and if he takes it, he must return it, and Article 313 provides that the subordinate is obliged to pay the compensation estimated on the dependent, if any. because of that, and this does not change the subordinate’s lack of technical supervision and guidance when the subordinate performs his work, as long as the job is what has helped him to perform his illegal act or prepared him. The chance that he commits an offense, whether he has committed it in the interest of the follower or for a personal motive, or whether the error has occurred with the knowledge of the follower (company) or without his knowledge.

The court concluded with its conviction in the statements of the accused employee who received the money, promised it and deposited it in the company safe, in addition to the report of the expert who inspected the contents of the surveillance cameras’ memory and made sure the amount was deposited but indicated that the papers were empty, proving the ownership of the third defendant in the company, as well as his lack of self-receipt Money amount, in which the legal responsibility remains with the employee as it. subordinate, and the company as subordinate, and the court ordered them both to pay 700 thousand Saudi riyals or equivalent in dirhams, 685 thousand dirhams to the plaintiff in addition to the legal interest and 1000 dirhams to attorneys’ fees.

The court appointed an expert to examine the memory of the camera located at the scene.

Google Newsstand

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

Share

Print




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.