Khaberni - The Civil Court in Dubai dismissed a lawsuit in which a company specializing in the trade of jewelry and gold demanded a former employee repay an amount of one million dirhams he received as an advance, but did not return despite acknowledging in the police station that he received the amount from the company due to a previous resolution.
In detail, a company specializing in gold and jewelry filed a lawsuit demanding that a person of Arab nationality repay an amount of one million dirhams, in addition to one hundred thousand dirhams as compensation for the damage caused to it due to his refusal to pay the debt incurred on his part.
The company stated in its lawsuit that there was a work relationship that connected the defendant with the company's manager, under which he agreed to provide one million dirhams from the company's treasury to the defendant as an advance, to be repaid within one week as per the agreement between them.
The company added that by the set date, the defendant failed and refrained from repaying the debt amount without a legitimate excuse or legal justification, and hence the police were notified about him, and he was summoned to the center to inquire about his refusal to repay the amount, and he admitted in an official police report that he received one million dirhams from the plaintiff company based on previous financial transactions with the company's manager.
The plaintiff indicated that since the subject of the dispute was outside the scope of criminal prosecution, the report was preserved due to the civil nature of the relationship, and later, the Public Prosecution decided to administratively preserve the documents for the same reason, and then the company resorted to the civil court and filed a lawsuit against him.
When the defendant was questioned by the Civil Court, he stated in person that he did not receive an amount of one million dirhams from the company, but only received one hundred thousand dirhams for the purpose of repairing a car belonging to the director of the plaintiff company, contradicting what he had previously declared in the police report.
After the lawsuit was examined, the Court of First Instance issued a judgment rejecting the lawsuit because its papers did not include a copy of the defendant's statements in the police report that prove his receipt of the disputed amount.
The company appealed the primary judgment before the Court of Appeal, which reviewed the appeal and ruled to reject the lawsuit as is, relying on the modification of the primary judgment linked to the conclusion of the investigation in the criminal complaint pending before the Public Prosecution.
After a decision from the Public Prosecution to preserve the documents due to the civil nature of the relationship, the company filed a new civil lawsuit, based on the appeal court's judgment rejecting the status of the lawsuit until the prosecution decides its position on the criminal part, and then it is entitled to sue him civilly again.
The plaintiff clarified that the mistake was confirmed by the defendant, and it caused material and moral damages to the company and its manager, represented in the retention of the amount since its receipt, without any justification, resulting in its loss of money and the expected profit from its investment of that amount throughout the non-payment period, as well as causing it losses by resorting to the judiciary and hiring lawyers and spending significant amounts to achieve its rights deprived by the defendant. It provided a binder of documents for its claim, including a copy of its license and the defendant's acknowledgment of receiving the amount in the police report.
In turn, a legal representative of the defendant argued that the lawsuit could not be considered due to a previous ruling on it by the Civil Court and the dismissal of it by the civil appellate courts.
After examining the lawsuit, the court stated in its reasons that the plea of res judicata due to a previous decision on the issue is of public order, which the court adjudicates on its own initiative, even if none of the parties insisted on it, as long as its elements were presented before it, and the reason for this is respecting the res judicata of the previous judgment issued in the same lawsuit, which is more deserving of respect and more connected to public order than any other matter due to the consequences of undermining it, perpetuating disputes and the instability of the rights of its holders.
The court further explained in the elaboration of its judgment that it was confirmed to it that the plaintiff had previously filed a civil lawsuit against the same defendant in the presented lawsuit and ruled in it by rejection substantively, after the court explored the issue demanded and concluded its lack of assurance in the plaintiff's witness statements, and denied the establishment of the demanded right, and thus the judgment became final and hence possesses the authority of res judicata, preventing the court from reconsidering the same issue, as it would be a redundant and futile repetition.
