- The trial court is required to provide the case with its accurate legal characterisation, independent of the disputing parties' interpretation or the specific wording used, but rather in alignment with its intended meaning. The trial court is precluded from applying the principles of tort liability in adjudicating a compensation claim wherein the aggrieved party shares a contractual relationship with the party deemed responsible for the inflicted harm, save for instances wherein the harm perpetrated by the counterparty amounts to a criminal act, fraud, or a grave error satisfying the requisites of tort liability. The bank breached a legal obligation thereby prohibiting such action in all cases, whether involving a contractual party or a non-contractual party.

- Contractual and tort liabilities are regarded as equivalent concerning the imperative to satisfy liability elements, including tort, damage, and a causal relationship. The trial court has the authority to extract these elements and evaluate the evidence, provided that its judgment is founded on sound reasoning substantiated by sufficient documented facts.

- In an illustration of sound legal reasoning, the ruling imposed the joint payment of a sum of money, along with legal interest, to the appellant, on the grounds that the said appellant suffered material damages to its primary account with the appellant bank, the causal relationship between the two acts and the criminal damage is materialised, and the contractual and tort liabilities of all three parties is proven.

- The bank's liability stems from facilitating unauthorised individuals to make bank transfers. This liability finds its foundation in the risk-bearing theory, rooted in the contractual relationship existing between the bank and the customer.

- Joint liability necessitates unity of source, unlike joint and several liability, which requires multiple sources of the debt while maintaining the same subject matter.

- In an illustration of invalid legal reasoning, the ruling imposed joint payment of a specified amount and compelled the parties to provide compensation, notwithstanding the absence of its prerequisites concerning the incident in question within the dispute.

- The matter is valid for adjudication and the court has decided to address it and adjudicate on its merits accordingly.

Whereas in the facts, as apparent in the contested ruling and the remaining the documents, the plaintiff - the first respondent - filed Suit No. 1682 of 2015, Plenary Civil, the plaintiff (first respondent) initiated Suit No. 1682 of 2015, Plenary Civil. The plaintiff sought a payment of 3,292,267 dirhams, along with legal interest at a rate of 12% per annum starting from 9/7/2006. The claim was supported by the assertion that the plaintiff had opened two bank accounts with the first defendant (the appellant). The first account was designated as the primary account, and the second as secondary. The partners agreed that the signature requirement for the primary account should be from each of the Chairman of the Board of Directors alone or with the joint signature of both partners (names). As for the sub-account, the signature was specified for the last two partners.

However, the second and third defendants (second and third respondents), with the approval of the first defendant, allegedly made transfers from the primary account that were unrelated to the company's business to private accounts in China and elsewhere. As a result, the plaintiff filed a report against them, and they were criminally convicted for breach of trust and embezzlement of the company funds. The remaining partners filed Suit No. 2160 of 2009, plenary civil, and the court assigned an expert who purportedly proved that the bank (the appellant) had violated banking rules.

After the court ruled not to accept the initial lawsuit due to it being filed by a person lacking legal capacity, the partners pursued another legal course by initiating lawsuit No. 3610 of 2011, Commercial Plenary, with the objective of dissolving and liquidating the company. The court responded by appointing a liquidator for the company, who subsequently filed the present lawsuit.

Upon consideration, the court of first instance decided to appoint an expert in the lawsuit. The expert completed the assigned task and was re-assigned to examine objections raised by the two parties. Following the completion of his tasks and the submission of two reports, the plaintiff amended its requests, now demanding that the three defendants jointly pay the amount of 3,716,876.99 dirhams, with legal interest at the rate of 12%, starting from the date of 9/7/2006 until full payment. The court then interrogated the expert regarding his two reports. Subsequently, the expert was reassigned, and he submitted a second supplementary report in which he reached the same conclusion as his initial report. The court then interrogated the expert again regarding his last report, and he confirmed that the amounts owed to the plaintiff by the first defendant resulted from transferring that money from the second and third defendants, who were not authorised by the remaining partners to do so. After both parties to the dispute commented on the documents presented, the court decided to appoint another expert to investigate the case.

After the completion of the expert's task and responses from the parties, the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance issued a ruling on 30/8/2018, deciding not to hear the case due to the passage of time regarding the first defendant, and to reject the case concerning the second and third defendants. The plaintiff appealed this decision under Appeal No. 1374 of 2018.

Upon deliberation, the court of the second instance decided to assign a tripartite committee of banking experts. After completing their task and receiving comments from both parties, the Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal ruled on 29/10/2019 to annul the appealed ruling and ruled again to impose jointly on the defendants to pay the appellant the amount of 2,264,465 dirhams, with legal interest of 5% from 6/8/2006 until full payment.

The first appellant (the bank) was dissatisfied with this ruling and subsequently filed the present cassation appeal. The cassation was presented to the court, held in a Council Chamber, and after due consideration, the court deemed it worthy of further examination in a session. The case was heard as recorded in the minutes of the sessions, and today's session was scheduled to pronounce the final ruling.

Whereas the cassation is grounded in three reasons, and in the second and third reasons, the appellant objects to the contested ruling, citing violations of the law, deficiencies in causation, and a breach of the right of defence. The appellant contends that it was wrongly obliged to pay compensation despite not causing harm to the first respondent (the plaintiff company). According to the appellant, it was the second and third respondents who initiated the harm (the second and third defendant partners). Furthermore, the plaintiff based its claim on tort liability, seeking joint compensation from all three defendants. The appellant argues that the ruling should have decided not to hear the lawsuit due to the statute of limitations raised by the appellant. This, according to the appellant, warrants the reversal of the ruling that did not adhere to this perspective.

This objection lacks merits, since it is established and prescribed as per the ruling of this court, that the trial court is required to provide the case with its accurate legal characterization, independent of the disputing parties' interpretation or the specific wording used, but rather in alignment with its intended meaning.

Whereas in the first reason the appellant objects to the contested ruling for violation of the law. The objection is based on the ruling's imposition of compensation on the second and third respondents in accordance with tort liability provisions, considering them perpetrators of a crime. On the other hand, the appellant was sentenced to pay compensation based on contractual liability arising from the banking services contract, despite the rejection of the plea of prescription to the case. Notably, the ruling imposed joint liability on all parties for compensation, which, according to the appellant, contravenes the stipulations of Articles 291 and 450 of the Federal Civil Transactions Law. As a result, the appellant asserts that this violation necessitates the reversal of the contested ruling.

This objection holds merit since, it is legally established that the basis of the bank's liability for enabling unauthorized individuals to conduct bank transfers is grounded in the risk-bearing theory stemming from the contractual relationship between the bank and the customer.

Based on the foregoing.