Trans Emirates Co gets back Dh1.2m

DUBAI — The Dubai Court of Cassation has upheld a verdict issued by the Court of First Instance ordering Marwan Ahmad Al Ghurair to pay Dh1,268,112 to Trans Emirates Contracting Co. for constructing a school building.

By Mohsen Rashid

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

Published: Thu 18 May 2006, 11:54 AM

Last updated: Sat 4 Apr 2015, 7:42 PM

Marwan who is the owner of Dubai National School, did not pay the company even though it had completed the job in accordance with an agreement signed on May 13, 2001. Saif Ahmad Al Ghurair was the guarantor. The company then approached the Court Al Ghurairs ordered the dues in addition to 9 per cent annual interest on the amount with Al Ghurairs ordered retrospective effect from March 2004 until full payment.

The defendants then moved the Court of Appeal which ruled that they were not entitled to challenge the verdict after expiry of the legal period for appeal.

Both defendants appealed against the verdict on March 29 last year but the Court declared that they are not entitled to file an appeal, as it was after the expiry of the grace period granted after issuing a verdict in which any appeal will be considered legal.

So they filed another appeal before the Court of Cassation, which rejected it in September 2005 and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal to look into the matter afresh.

The Court of Appeal again ruled that they have no right to appeal, as it was submitted after the end of the legal period for appeal. This prompted them to file an appeal before the Court of Cassation once again. Meanwhile, the Company submitted a defence note demanding the rejection of the appeal.

According to the documents, the court representative went to the premises of the school where the appellant works on 3/7/2004 and handed over the notice to the school principal (Amjad Ezzat) who signed as the receiver because the defendant was not present. The representative

neither asked the reason for the defendant's absence nor ascertained if the appellant functioned from the school's premises.

The principal received all notices regarding the case without any objection or statement that the defendant doesn't work in the school. This prompted the court to reject his right of appeal.

More news from