COURT ASKS FIRM TO PAY UP FOR REFUSING TO COMPLETE VILLA CONSTRUCTION

demanding the payment of Dh438,168 and the termination of the contract.

The plaintiff's lawsuit stated that she signed a contract with the company to build a villa for her. The total construction cost was estimated at Dh 913,000 with part financing to the tune of Dh500,000 from the Shaikh Zayed Housing Programme and the rest Dh413,000 paid by the plaintiff. The construction work was scheduled to be completed by January 23, 2004.

The plaintiff complied with the payment as per the contract. She paid Dh287,000 but the company didn't complete the agreed work and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done, in spite of the end of the completion date, which they had agreed on. The completed portion did not comply with the standards stipulated under the agreement, which resulted in big damages to the plaintiff.

The company completely suspended construction work in January 2004 and refused to continue without any reason and hence the plaintiff had no other option but to refer the matter to the courts.

Based on the laboratory report, the Court of First Instance ordered the termination of the contract, and ordered the company to pay Dh46,300 to the plaintiff.

However, both parties to the dispute appealed against the verdict. The Court of Appeal rejected the company's plea and accepted the plaintiff's appeal. The court then amended the verdict ordering the company to pay Dh100,000.

The company filed another appeal before the Court of Cassation, stating that the delay was not its responsibility as the plaintiff's son had changed the contractor several times and kicked the labourers out of the construction site. The percentage of completed work is 50 per cent and not 31per cent as mentioned in the expert's report, the company further submitted.

The company also mentioned that even if there was delay in delivery, the company will have to pay fines but not to the extent of 10 per cent of the total amount of Dh91,300 which the court decided.

The court said that the company did not produce any witnesses to support the claims that the actions of the plaintiff's son were the cause for delay.

Regarding the percentage of completed work, the court felt that the expert's report was enough and there was no need to take into account what is raised by the disputing parties. So the court decided to reject the appeal and upheld the verdict of the Court of Appeal.