COMPLAINANT FINDS HIMSELF ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LAW

The courts of Dubai have dismissed a lawsuit filed by Kh M S against a money exchange centre demanding payment of Dh6.1 million plus 12 per cent interest per annum after it was found that his claim of depositing the amount with the centre in a special account was false.

By Mohsen Rashid (Staff Reporter)

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

Published: Mon 9 Jan 2006, 12:23 PM

Last updated: Sat 4 Apr 2015, 4:32 PM

According to the case history, the complainant Kh M S claimed that he had been dealing with the money exchange centre since he opened an account in his name. He claimed that the centre, during the period January 1, 1998 to February 12, 2000, had received various remittances in his account through cheques and cash amounting to Dh6.1 million.

The complainant subsequently asked the centre to pay him Dh4.5 million from his account, but the latter refused saying that it had transferred the amounts in his account to Wall Street Banking Corporation in New Zealand on his request.

Despite his demands, the centre refrained from making the payment, which prompted him to file the lawsuit against the money exchange centre.

The court deputed an accounts expert to scrutinise whether the complainant had an account with the money exchange centre, type and nature of account and the deposits he had made in the account as well as the reason behind transferring the amounts to Wall Street Banking Corporation.

Based on the report of the accounts expert, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case. The complainant appealed against the verdict, and the court sent the accounts expert once again to verify records. The expert submitted his second report after which the court upheld the lower court's verdict.

The complainant contested the verdict before the Court of Cassation, which rejected the contentions in his petition on the basis of documents as well as the report of the expert.

The court observed that the complainant did not open a current account with the money exchange centre, but had opened an account with Wall Street Banking Corporation in New Zealand. The papers of the suit were void of any documents that proved that the complainant had deposited the amounts he had demanded in his suit.

Moreover, the expert, in his two reports, had established grounds for the dismissal of the case.

The complainant failed to produce any proof to substantiate his argument, and therefore his petition was rejected and the former ruling was upheld without seeking the assistance of another accounts expert.


More news from