Compensation demand by bank rejected

ABU DHABI — The Supreme Federal Court has turned down a petition by Qatar Islamic Bank (QIB) on the ground that the bank's lawyer who filed the petition lacked proof of authorisation.

By A Staff Reporter

  • Follow us on
  • google-news
  • whatsapp
  • telegram

Published: Mon 6 Feb 2006, 10:16 AM

Last updated: Sat 4 Apr 2015, 6:42 PM

It was not clear that the person who authorised the lawyer was actually the authority to do so on behalf of the bank, the court ruled.

The QIB, which owns the Jazeera Maritime Transport Company, the Kiako Ltd Company and the Second Kiako Ltd Company, had filed a lawsuit against Faisal S. A., the Gulf Fuel Supply Company, Oman Marine Engineering Ltd Company, the Gulf Carriers Ltd Company, Ajman, and Dubai, the Suwaidi Navigation Company, the Ayed Ltd Company, and the owners of Alya Carrier Ship and Sea Lion Carrier Ship, demanding a compensation of $8,838,065 (Dh32,524,079) plus interest.

Both the Ajman Court of First Instance and the Ajman Court of Appeal turned down the petition. The QIB approached the Supreme Federal Court, which also dismissed the plea on the ground that the lawyer did not submit the power of attorney from the petitioner, as required by law.

The court also maintained that when one single lawyer represented a number of claimants, he must submit, besides the power of attorney, documents proving the petitioner's authority to appoint a lawyer.

The apex court said that Jasem Mohammed, the lawyer who filed the case, submitted the power of attorney issued by lawyer Issam Al Tamimi and powers of attorney issued to Al Tamimi by Shaikh Abdul Rahman Abdullah, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of QIB, besides three powers of attorney issued by Sayed Maqbool Qadir, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Al Jazeera Maritime Transport, the Kiako Ltd. Company and the Second Kiako Ltd.

But Jassim Mohammed did not provide the court with documents to prove that Shaikh Abdul Rahman was actually the official representative of QIB and other companies mentioned, the court pointed out.

The court turned down the plea, since the authority of Shaikh Abdul Rahman Abdullah to submit a plea has not been confirmed.


More news from