Cassation No

The contested ruling cancelled the performance order and declined its reissuance, predicated on the established content of the lawsuit documents and the completed expert task conducted under its directive. The judgment contended that the check in question aligned with the respondent's assertion that it was executed in blank as a form of collateral, alongside other checks earmarked for leasing a residential studio. However, the court's scrutiny of a statement proffered before the case expert was deemed insufficient, as the statement asserted that the check represented funds received by the respondent from the appellant's owner in exchange for the transfer of property ownership. The appellant's submission of evidence was premised on the contention that it had transferred funds to the respondent through a general power of attorney granted by the appellant's owner. The court, in response, summarily dismissed these submissions, attributing them to the personal dispositions of the owner of the institution, without elucidating the ramifications of such actions—specifically, whether they extended to the respondent or were confined to the institution, considering that a sole proprietorship lacks legal personality with an independent financial liability distinct from its owner. Moreover, the court failed to address the legal implications arising from the discrepancy between the claimed check's value, encompassing sevenfold the rental value, and the inadequacy within the expertise report. This failure to rectify the deficiencies in the expert analysis renders the judgment deficient in causation.

1- It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that court rulings shall be founded upon unequivocal, lucid, and adequate rationales that substantiate the judge's meticulous examination of the prevailing dispute. The court, likewise, shall scrutinise the evidence presented to it with diligence, aiming to ascertain the veracity inherent in the case. The court's conviction shall be rooted in the truth as established by law, demonstrating that the requisite legal elements have been proven and lead to the outcome reached. 2- Furthermore, the rulings are required to instill confidence in the reader by affirming that the court, with discernment and foresight, comprehensively assessed the facts and evidence of the case. The court is obliged to ground its decision in the presented evidence, elucidate the reasons justifying its stance, specify the origin from which its ruling emanates, exhaust its authority to unveil the truth, and utilise every available means to ascertain the reality within the case. Failure to adhere to these principles renders the ruling fatally flawed.

3- Given the aforementioned circumstances, the contested judgment annulled the appealed payment order, compelling the respondent to remit the sum of nine hundred thousand dirhams, along with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent. Additionally, the court declined to reissue the order, basing its decision on the evidentiary record and the completed expertise task carried out pursuant to the court's directive. The court, drawing conclusions from the expertise report, determined that Check No. 78 in question concurred with the statements of the respondent, the drawer, who asserted that it was executed in blank as a guarantee, alongside four other checks (Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82) designated for the rental of a residential studio in the [Name] area. The annual rent was established at twelve thousand dirhams for the period from 6/1/2011 to 5/1/2012. The court further specified that the relationship between the two disputing parties was confined solely to this rental arrangement, with no additional transactions between them. Moreover, the court emphasized that the respondent's relationship with his uncle was of a personal nature. Crucially, the judgment highlighted that if the beneficiary provides a specific reason for the drawer to issue the check and it subsequently emerges that the disclosed reason is non-existent, the burden of proving the validity of the stated reason shifts to the beneficiary. In this instance, the beneficiary failed to substantiate the existence of the purported reason. [Name] - one of the heirs of the deceased [Name], the proprietor of [Name] Real Estate Corporation - informed the appointed expert that Check No. 78, the subject of the ongoing litigation, pertained to payments received by the respondent. These payments were made by his father in exchange for the transfer of property ownership situated in Ajman, specifically in the [Name] area. This transfer occurred subsequent to the expiration of the legal period associated with the Sheikh Zayed Housing Project. It is established that a sole proprietorship, while not considered a legal entity in the strictest legal sense, lacks financial liability independent of its owner. Consequently, any legal action initiated by or against the proprietorship is effectively undertaken by or against its owner. The inclusion or omission of the proprietorship's name in the lawsuit does not alter this principle, provided that the opposing parties are aware of it, rendering such inclusion or omission valid. Additionally, the proprietor of the institution holds the right to assert claims for debts incurred in the course of the commercial activities of the institution. The appellant presented evidence indicating that the respondent had received monetary sums through customary documents, invoices, and check copies, facilitated by a general power of attorney granted by the respondent to his uncle, conferring absolute control over the villa situated in Ajman. However, the contested judgment inadequately examined the aforementioned evidence, merely stating that the receipts, invoices, and check copies, bearing the respondent's signature and indicating the receipt of their value, and invoked by [Name] Real Estate, were attributed to the deceased [Name]. Furthermore, the judgment asserted that these documents were not issued by the appellant institution, asserting a personal relationship between the party delivering the funds and the recipient. Also, Check No. 78, among others, bears the signature of the respondent and was issued in conjunction with four other checks for the rental of a residential studio. The appellant purportedly utilised Check No. 78 as compensation for revoking the power of attorney, thereby securing the rights of the heirs to the villa situated in Ajman. The contested judgment failed to elucidate the implications of the actions undertaken by [Name] Real Estate and whether they extend to the respondent and his institution, and the subsequent legal ramifications thereof. The general power of attorney, granted by the respondent to his uncle, confers absolute authority over the property in Ajman, with a commitment to transfer ownership upon completion of its legal procedures, serving as evidence of indebtedness. This document also delineates the source from which the heirs derived their entitlement to exploit Check No. 78 as compensation for the annulment of the power of attorney. Notably, the drawer of the check refrained from demanding its reimbursement when remitting the rental value subsequent to the police report filed on 12/4/2016, encompassing four other checks (Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82) with a cumulative value of 12,000 dirhams. Check No. 78, presented as a guarantee, exceeded the rent value seven and a half times, warranting an examination of its impact on the appellant's liability and challenging the presumption associated with the check as a payment instrument. The ruling did not scrutinise the significance of the defence proffered by the appellant or address the lacunae in the expertise report upon which the judgment relied. This inadequacy in examination constitutes a deficiency in reasoning, necessitating the reversal of the contested judgment.

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and the remaining documents, the appellant had previously sought a payment order in Case No. 1862 of 2020, compelling the respondent to remit an amount of 900,000 dirhams, along with legal interest set at 12%. The appellant deposited the original check, the requisite payment order, and the notice of recourse against the individual targeted by the claim. On 1/4/2020, the Summary Justice Magistrate at the [Name] Federal Court of First Instance issued an order mandating [Name] ‌to pay [Name] the sum of nine hundred thousand dirhams and interest at a rate of five percent annually, commencing from the date of the claim until full payment. The convicted party contested this decision in Appeal No. 932 of 2020. Following deliberations, the second-instance court decreed the assignment of an expert to investigate the matter. In adherence to this directive, the expert fulfilled the assigned task, and subsequent to comments from both disputing parties, the [Name] Federal Court of Appeal, on 30/12/2020, annulled the appealed order and once again declined to issue the order.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the respondent initiated the current appeal in cassation against it. Following the submission of the cassation appeal in a Council Chamber, the court deemed it valid for consideration in a session. The appeal was heard in accordance with the recorded minutes of the sessions, and today's session was scheduled for the pronouncement of the ruling.

Whereas, the appellant raises objections to the contested ruling on grounds of errors in the application of the law, violation of documented facts, deficiencies in reasoning, flaws in inference, and violation of the right of defence. The basis of the objection lies in the ruling's reliance on the expert's report, notwithstanding its lack of familiarity with the case's facts and documents, and its dismissal of fundamental objections raised. The court, it is asserted, failed to calculate the amounts received by the respondent from his deceased uncle, [Name], who was the sole proprietor of the appellant at the time of the transaction. The appellant contends that the sole proprietorship constituted an integral aspect of his deceased uncle's financial liability and was responsible for its rights and obligations and its legal structure remained unaltered until his demise. The amounts in question, not refuted by the respondent, pertained to the uncle and his appellant institution. The respondent, who received these amounts, issued the check in question as part of an agreement to relinquish ownership of the villa located in the Emirate of Ajman, transferring it to his uncle, the prior owner of the appellant, upon its receipt from the Sheikh Zayed Housing Project. The appellant argues that there exists a connection between the owner of the institution and the institution itself, such that the amounts received from the owner should be deemed equivalent to being delivered by the institution. The contested ruling, according to the appellant, failed to adequately examine the documents and evidence in the case. It approved an expertise report that did not scrutinise the case's facts, treating the delivered check merely as a collateral for residential rent, without accounting for its value or effecting the transfer of ownership of the Ajman villa to the appellant. This, the appellant contends, resulted in the unjust enrichment of the respondent at its expense. Therefore, the ruling is asserted to have erred in the application of the law and is deemed fatally flawed, necessitating its reversal.

The objection raised holds merits, since it is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that court rulings shall be founded upon unequivocal, lucid, and adequate rationales that substantiate the judge's meticulous examination of the prevailing dispute. The court, likewise, shall scrutinise the evidence presented to it with diligence, aiming to ascertain the veracity inherent in the case. The court's conviction shall be rooted in the truth as established by law, demonstrating that the requisite legal elements have been proven and lead to the outcome reached.

Furthermore, the rulings are required to instill confidence in the reader by affirming that the court, with discernment and foresight, comprehensively assessed the facts and evidence of the case. The court is obliged to ground its decision in the presented evidence, elucidate the reasons justifying its stance, specify the origin from which its ruling emanates, exhaust its authority to unveil the truth, and utilise every available means to ascertain the reality within the case. Failure to adhere to these principles renders the ruling fatally flawed.

Given the aforementioned circumstances, the contested judgment annulled the appealed payment order, compelling the respondent to remit the sum of nine hundred thousand dirhams, along with legal interest at the rate of twelve percent. Additionally, the court declined to reissue the order, basing its decision on the evidentiary record and the completed expertise task carried out pursuant to the court's directive. The court, drawing conclusions from the expertise report, determined that Check No. 78 in question concurred with the statements of the respondent, the drawer, who asserted that it was executed in blank as a guarantee, alongside four other checks (Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82) designated for the rental of a residential studio in the [Name] area. The annual rent was established at twelve thousand dirhams for the period from 6/1/2011 to 5/1/2012. The court further specified that the relationship between the two disputing parties was confined solely to this rental arrangement, with no additional transactions between them. Moreover, the court emphasized that the respondent's relationship with his uncle was of a personal nature. Crucially, the judgment highlighted that if the beneficiary provides a specific reason for the drawer to issue the check and it subsequently emerges that the disclosed reason is non-existent, the burden of proving the validity of the stated reason shifts to the beneficiary. In this instance, the beneficiary failed to substantiate the existence of the purported reason. [Name] - one of the heirs of the deceased [Name], the proprietor of [Name] Real Estate Corporation - informed the appointed expert that Check No. 78, the subject of the ongoing litigation, pertained to payments received by the respondent. These payments were made by his father in exchange for the transfer of property ownership situated in Ajman, specifically in the [Name] area. This transfer occurred subsequent to the expiration of the legal period associated with the Sheikh Zayed Housing Project. It is established that a sole proprietorship, while not considered a legal entity in the strictest legal sense, lacks financial liability independent of its owner. Consequently, any legal action initiated by or against the proprietorship is effectively undertaken by or against its owner. The inclusion or omission of the proprietorship's name in the lawsuit does not alter this principle, provided that the opposing parties are aware of it, rendering such inclusion or omission valid. Additionally, the proprietor of the institution holds the right to assert claims for debts incurred in the course of the commercial activities of the institution. The appellant presented evidence indicating that the respondent had received monetary sums through customary documents, invoices, and check copies, facilitated by a general power of attorney granted by the respondent to his uncle, conferring absolute control over the villa situated in Ajman. However, the contested judgment inadequately examined the aforementioned evidence, merely stating that the receipts, invoices, and check copies, bearing the respondent's signature and indicating the receipt of their value, and invoked by [Name] Real Estate, were attributed to the deceased [Name]. Furthermore, the judgment asserted that these documents were not issued by the appellant institution, asserting a personal relationship between the party delivering the funds and the recipient. Also, Check No. 78, among others, bears the signature of the respondent and was issued in conjunction with four other checks for the rental of a residential studio. The appellant purportedly utilised Check No. 78 as compensation for revoking the power of attorney, thereby securing the rights of the heirs to the villa situated in Ajman. The contested judgment failed to elucidate the implications of the actions undertaken by [Name] Real Estate and whether they extend to the respondent and his institution, and the subsequent legal ramifications thereof. The general power of attorney, granted by the respondent to his uncle, confers absolute authority over the property in Ajman, with a commitment to transfer ownership upon completion of its legal procedures, serving as evidence of indebtedness. This document also delineates the source from which the heirs derived their entitlement to exploit Check No. 78 as compensation for the annulment of the power of attorney. Notably, the drawer of the check refrained from demanding its reimbursement when remitting the rental value subsequent to the police report filed on 12/4/2016, encompassing four other checks (Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82) with a cumulative value of 12,000 dirhams. Check No. 78, presented as a guarantee, exceeded the rent value seven and a half times, warranting an examination of its impact on the appellant's liability and challenging the presumption associated with the check as a payment instrument. The ruling did not scrutinise the significance of the defence proffered by the appellant or address the lacunae in the expertise report upon which the judgment relied. This inadequacy in examination constitutes a deficiency in reasoning, necessitating the reversal of the contested judgment.