Villa owner need not pay Dh45,700 to designer company

DUBAI — The verdict given by the Court of First Instance ordering Bahram M., a villa owner to pay Dh45,700 to an interior designer company, has been quashed both by the Courts of Cassation and Appeal.

By Mohsen Rashid

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

Published: Sun 4 Dec 2005, 10:08 AM

Last updated: Thu 2 Apr 2015, 7:18 PM

The latter had provided and installed two kitchens in a villa, according to some conditions and specifications agreed upon by the two at a cost of Dh91,770, which was not fully paid.

When the company filed a case for recovery of Dh45,700 towards dues, the Court of First Instance ordered Bahram to make good the payment at five per cent interest.

The villa owner, however, contended in his appeal that the company did not bring the lawsuit till December 26, 2004, two years and four months after the completion of the work, which according to Article 476 of Civic Deals, attracted provisions of limitations.

Both the Appeals Court and Court of Cassation agreed with the argument and quashed the lower courts' verdict.

The case is summarised as follows: A contract was signed on May 28, 2002 between the establishment and the villa owner to provide and install two kitchens against Dh91,770. When fulfilling its obligations on August 28, 2002, the establishment received only a part of the sum, but Dh45,700 was still overdue. The establishment did not bring a suit against Bahram until December 26, 2004, i.e. two years and four months later. Thus, the villa owner overruled the appeal due to the provision of limitations, according to Article 476 of civil deals.

The Dubai Court of First Instance had ordered the villa owner to pay Dh45,700 and five per cent interest starting from December 25, 2004 to the establishment. He appealed against the verdict, which was quashed by the Court of Appeal and overruled due to the provision of limitations. The establishment, in the Court of Cassation, said the prescription mentioned in Article 476 is limited to the provision of materials, not installation works, whereas the contract includes both provision and installation.

Moreover, the villa owner acknowledged the establishment’s fulfillment of the works agreed upon. The Court of Cassation overruled the appeal of the establishment’s defence, highlighting that the installation works are necessarily appended to the provision works.

Added to this, the provision of limitations is disregarded in the case of any judicial appeal or procedures carried out by the creditor to keep his right. In addition, the debtor’s explicit or implicit acknowledgement of the creditor’s right discontinues the provisions of limitations for overruling the appeal. The claimant did not do this and hence the Court of Cassation overruled the appeal and ordered the establishment to pay the expenses and Dh1,000 as lawyer charges. It also ordered the confiscation of the deposit.

More news from