Khaberni - The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Claims ruled to reject the lawsuit of a young man who demanded a girl to pay him 200,000 dirhams in compensation for accusing him of following her in her car and attempted stopping, stating that the criminal court’s acquittal of the plaintiff was based on doubt in the evidence sufficiency for conviction, without the criminal court definitively ruling on the falsity of the complaint or the proof of its malicious intent.
In detail, a young man filed a legal lawsuit against a girl demanding her to pay him 200,000 dirhams in compensation for the moral and psychological damages he suffered, which included harm to his reputation and social standing, and the psychological suffering, anxiety, and loss of peace he endured as a result of the criminal complaint against him, which was proven invalid. The plaintiff also demanded the girl cover the expenses and attorney fees, noting that she had filed a complaint against him accusing him of following her with his vehicle, attempting to stop her repeatedly, which led to him being arrested, and the incident being recorded as a misdemeanor according to the law of crimes and penalties.
The plaintiff pointed out that the Al Ain Primary Court acquitted him of the charges based on the lack of proven guilt and the defendant's statements being devoid of any evidence or corroborating indication. The acquittal was upheld on appeal, while the defendant submitted a brief arguing that the lawsuit should not be accepted because it was not filed in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure, due to being unproductive, vague demands, and lack of a lawsuit sheet that meets the legal standard.
The court rejected the defendant's plea of inadmissibility, noting that the established record shows that the plaintiff filed his claim with a written, signed sheet, filed according to legally stipulated procedures, and included a clear statement of the dispute's facts, specific demands, and a legal basis for the claim, thus fulfilling the conditions for the lawsuit's formal acceptance regarding the capacity and interest, which means this plea is not based on any legal ground and should be disregarded.
The court explained in the reasoning of its ruling that it is a settled judicial principle that reporting crimes is a public right, whether for the victim or others. The person reporting is not required to be previously certain of the accuracy of their report, as this is the responsibility of the relevant investigative authorities, and thus the reporter is not liable for compensation for any damages that may befall the reported against unless there was abuse in exercising this right by filing the report with malicious intent. The court noted that the two criminal judgments that acquitted the plaintiff were based on doubt in the evidence and the insufficiency for conviction, without the criminal court definitively ruling on the falsity of the complaint or the malicious intent, or abuse of the right to report. It was established that these judgments by themselves do not imply a civil wrong on the part of the defendant, and indicated that the documents lacked any evidence or indication that the complaint in dispute was filed with malice or untruthfully, or that it involved abuse or malicious intent. The court noted that mere judicial acquittal - when based on doubt in the evidence - alone is not sufficient for establishing civil liability, and the element of error was not present in the current lawsuit. Since the error element was lacking, which is a fundamental component of tort liability, the court saw no ground to examine the remaining elements, represented in damage and causation, making the demand for compensation unfounded by law or fact, and ruled to reject the lawsuit and burden the plaintiff with the court fees and expenses.
