• Home

Apex court orders retrial in payment case

The Al Khayal Company, owned by H. Singh, filed a lawsuit before the Abu Dhabi Shariah Court of First Instance against Al Dhabi, demanding the latter to foot a bill of Dh14,174 for carpentry and smithery works in the industrial city project in Mussafah. Al Dhabi denied the case, arguing that the claimant did not furnish documents confirming that it had done that work.

The Court of First Instance dismissed the case, but the claimant contested the verdict before the Shariah Court of Appeals which quashed that verdict and ordered Al Dhabi to pay the money in demand. Al Dhabi moved the Federal Supreme Court, saying that Al Khayal based its case on the ground that it carried out works for Al Dhabi and that the only evidence it presented to the court was a copy of bills signed and stamped by it. But the defendant denied that, adding that the papers did not contain any description or evidence confirming that the claimant had actually executed the said works.

Al Dhabi said the person who received the bill and signed it was the manager of the claimant although the stamp of delivery did not mention anything but the word ‘received’ and the date, whereas the source of signature was unknown and did not mention the authorised manager, but the word ‘administrative manager’ under the name Engineer Ghassan. These words were not stated on the claimant’s stamp and had nothing to do with it. What had been mentioned in regard to the manager concerned the defendant and this called for repealing the verdict.

Replying to this, the Federal Supreme Court said the appeal was relevant, affirming that the traditional document is not a proof except for the one who issued and signed it, or was authorised for signing on his behalf as per Article 11/1 of the Federal Evidence Law. The court revoked the appeal and referred the case to the Court of Appeal, which ordered a retrial of the case under a new bench.

• UAE