Khaberni - The Primary Civil Court in Dubai ruled that it is not permissible to consider a civil suit filed to claim the financial liability clearance of an Arab debtor from a bank transfer of about 4.5 million Dirhams, which had previously been adjudicated by a binding judgment issued by the state’s courts, affirming that re-proposing the same dispute in various legal formulations does not undermine the binding effect of the adjudged matter, nor does it open a new door for litigation.
According to the settled conviction of the court and as detailed in the lawsuit papers, the events of the case date back to the plaintiff filing a lawsuit claiming the clearance of his financial liability from an amount of 1.065 million Euros, transferred in 2016 from the account of one of the defendants to his account at a local bank. The plaintiff claimed that this amount had previously been judged in court against another commercial company, and he also demanded a substantial compensation for damages he claimed resulted from his judicial pursuit for the same debt.
The plaintiff explained in his lawsuit that the financial transfer occurred in the context of an investment relationship that developed years earlier between the father of the defendants, who later passed away, and a jewelry trading company, where large sums of money in US dollars and Euros were invested, before the commercial relationships became complicated and turned into a multi-chapter judicial dispute.
Referring to the litigation records, the court found that the dispute regarding these transfers had previously been brought before the courts in several civil and commercial lawsuits, one of the most notable being a commercial lawsuit in which a final ruling was issued obligating the plaintiff to pay 1.065 million Euros, or its equivalent in UAE Dirhams, with statutory interest. This ruling was upheld by the Courts of Appeal and Cassation, thus becoming final and irrevocable.
However, the plaintiff returned years later to knock on the judiciary’s doors anew, with a request for "financial liability clearance," in an attempt to reopen the dispute from a different legal angle.
The court stated in the reasoning of its verdict that rulings, which acquire the authority of the adjudged matter, serve as conclusive evidence in what has been decided upon in the dispute, thereby precluding the re-proposition of the same issue before the courts, even with new evidence or defenses, or even with a different legal formulation of the requests, as long as the parties, subject, and cause are the same.
The court emphasized that the essence isn't in the words used in the lawsuit petition, but rather in the true nature and aim of the request, explaining that the request for "financial liability clearance" fundamentally pertains to the same debt previously adjudged as the plaintiff's liability, which prevents its re-discussion, especially since the principal of liability clearance is affirmed unless proven occupied by a final judgment, negating this principle and forbidding returning to it.
The court added that the strength of the adjudged matter extends beyond the accurateness of the ruling or any legal error in its application, transcending even the rules of public order, to safeguard transaction stability and proper administration of justice, and to prevent transforming the courts into revolving arenas for endless dispute repetitions.
Regarding the compensation claim, the court found that the lawsuit lacked any legal mistake that could constitute civil liability, asserting that the defendants' recourse to judiciary to claim a right ruled by a final judgment does not constitute a mistake, nor does it entail a compensatory obligation, leading to the rejection of this claim.
Based on the foregoing, the court ruled that examining the lawsuit was impermissible due to a prior adjudication, obliging the plaintiff to bear its fees and expenses.
• The court reiterated that the request for "financial liability clearance" essentially targets the same debt previously adjudged as engaging the plaintiff's liability, which prevents its re-discussion.
