Cassation No

(4) The appellant upholds that the checks in question were issued as collateral for an amount borrowed from the respondent, and a partial repayment of said borrowed amount has been executed. The contested ruling summarily dismissed the appellant's defence, characterising it as a mere disagreement unsupported by evidence. This rejection occurred without conducting a thorough investigation, notwithstanding the fact that the case expert substantiated the appellant's claim by demonstrating, through bank account statements, that a partial payment had been made to the respondent for the amount corresponding to the checks in question. This renders the contested ruling deficient in reasoning and in breach of the right of defence.

1- It is prescribed as per the ruling of the court that while a check serves as a payment instrument and is grounded upon an existing and legitimate reason for the obligation to remit its value, this does not preclude those asserting a contrary position from substantiating their claims. Such individuals may establish evidence supporting their contentions by proving the absence of a valid rationale for the check, by demonstrating the true motive behind its issuance, such as for reasons of trust or guarantee, or by proving the discharge of the debt through fulfillment of its original obligation.

2- Also, it is prescribed that an expert's task is circumscribed to the examination of factual elements within the case and the expression of opinions on technical matters that present complexity beyond the facile purview of the judge, excluding any involvement in legal issues.

3- Further, it is prescribed that notwithstanding the comprehensive authority vested in the trial court to assess the work of the expert, such assessment is contingent upon addressing the specific point of dispute. Moreover, it is required to be substantiated with sound reasoning, clearly articulating the legal and factual foundations that guide the court to the conclusions it has drawn.

4- Given the circumstances, it is evident from the notes of the contested ruling that it dismissed the appellant's defence, asserting that the checks - subject-matter of the claim - were issued by the appellant as collateral for an amount borrowed from the respondent, totaling 1,200,000 dirhams. The appellant purportedly made a partial payment of 605,000 dirhams, leaving the respondent indebted to him for only 595,000 dirhams. The ruling characterised this defence as a mere disagreement without supporting evidence in the documents. Furthermore, the ruling treated the checks as proof of the appellant's indebtedness to the respondent, equivalent to the value of the checks. It disregarded the findings of the accounting expert appointed in the case, as per the report indicating that, according to Emirates NBD Bank's statement of account, the appellant received a total of 1,200,000 dirhams from the respondent. The appellant allegedly paid 605,000 dirhams, and the outstanding amount owed by the appellant was determined to be 595,000 dirhams. This latter amount was considered by the expert as the actual outstanding debt. The court, however, regarded the checks in question, which form the basis of the claim, as guarantees for the payment of this remaining sum owed by the appellant to the respondent, adopting thereby the initial opinion of the expert who deferred its assessment to the court. Nonetheless, the ruling overlooked this substantiated fact presented by the expert and failed to undertake a thorough investigation to challenge it. Instead, the ruling contented itself with endorsing the contested payment order, asserting that the checks, subject-matter of the claim, are inherently instruments of payment. Furthermore, the ruling asserted that the appellant failed to furnish evidence to substantiate his defence. Consequently, the ruling is marred by deficiencies in reasoning and constitutes a breach of the right of defence. In light of these shortcomings, it is imperative that the ruling be reversed, and the case be remanded for further deliberation, obviating the need for an examination of the remaining grounds for cassation.

Whereas in the facts - as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and the remaining documents - the respondent filed a request with the judge of the Sharjah Court of First Instance for the issuance of Payment Order No. 1878 of 2020 Sharjah. This order obligated the appellant to remit the sum of 1,032,083 dirhams, along with a 12% interest rate from the due date until full payment. The basis for this claim rested on the assertion that the appellant owed the respondent the aforementioned amount, supported by the issuance of three checks drawn on the Emirates Islamic Bank on 31/1/2018. However, these checks bounced due to the closure of the account, leading to the filing of Criminal Case No. 494 of 2020 - Ajman. In the criminal proceedings, the appellant was convicted by a final criminal ruling. Despite being ordered to pay, he refused to comply and a payment order was sought. Subsequently, on 5/4/2020, the judge issued a decision obligating the appellant to pay the claimed amount along with a 5% interest rate from the date of filing the case until complete payment. The appellant challenged the aforementioned ruling through Appeal No. 957 of 2020 - Sharjah. The court, in response, assigned an accounting expert who subsequently presented a report. In the session held on 15/6/2021, the court rendered a decision confirming the appealed payment order. Dissatisfied with this decision, the appellant pursued further recourse by initiating the present appeal in cassation. Upon being presented to this court convened in a Council Chamber, the appeal in cassation was deemed valid for consideration. Consequently, a session was scheduled to hear and adjudicate on the matter.

In the first of the two grounds for challenging the contested ruling, the appellant raises objections based on an error in the application of the law, deficiencies in reasoning, and flaws in inference. The primary contention is that the ruling compelled him to remit the amount of 1,032,083 dirhams, representing the value of the checks in question, on the premise that they function as an instrument of payment. The appellant asserts that the expert report, as evidenced in the case, establishes that the checks were issued as a collateral for the amount borrowed from the respondent, which amounted to 1,200,000 dirhams. The appellant contends that he made a payment of 605,000 dirhams, leaving him indebted to the respondent for only 595,000 dirhams. The appellant argues that the ruling, issued in the appeal, failed to address this defence adequately and overlooked the expert's report in an unjustifiable manner. Consequently, the appellant contends that the ruling is flawed in a manner necessitating its reversal.

The objects raised holds merits, since it is prescribed as per the ruling of the court that while a check serves as a payment instrument and is grounded upon an existing and legitimate reason for the obligation to remit its value, this does not preclude those asserting a contrary position from substantiating their claims. Such individuals may establish evidence supporting their contentions by proving the absence of a valid rationale for the check, by demonstrating the true motive behind its issuance, such as for reasons of trust or guarantee, or by proving the discharge of the debt through fulfillment of its original obligation.

Also, it is prescribed that an expert's task is circumscribed to the examination of factual elements within the case and the expression of opinions on technical matters that present complexity beyond the facile purview of the judge, excluding any involvement in legal issues.

Further, it is prescribed that notwithstanding the comprehensive authority vested in the trial court to assess the work of the expert, such assessment is contingent upon addressing the specific point of dispute. Moreover, it is required to be substantiated with sound reasoning, clearly articulating the legal and factual foundations that guide the court to the conclusions it has drawn. Given the circumstances, it is evident from the notes of the contested ruling that it dismissed the appellant's defence, asserting that the checks - subject-matter of the claim - were issued by the appellant as collateral for an amount borrowed from the respondent, totaling 1,200,000 dirhams. The appellant purportedly made a partial payment of 605,000 dirhams, leaving the respondent indebted to him for only 595,000 dirhams. The ruling characterised this defence as a mere disagreement without supporting evidence in the documents. Furthermore, the ruling treated the checks as proof of the appellant's indebtedness to the respondent, equivalent to the value of the checks. It disregarded the findings of the accounting expert appointed in the case, as per the report indicating that, according to Emirates NBD Bank's statement of account, the appellant received a total of 1,200,000 dirhams from the respondent. The appellant allegedly paid 605,000 dirhams, and the outstanding amount owed by the appellant was determined to be 595,000 dirhams. This latter amount was considered by the expert as the actual outstanding debt. The court, however, regarded the checks in question, which form the basis of the claim, as guarantees for the payment of this remaining sum owed by the appellant to the respondent, adopting thereby the initial opinion of the expert who deferred its assessment to the court.

Nonetheless, the ruling overlooked this substantiated fact presented by the expert and failed to undertake a thorough investigation to challenge it. Instead, the ruling contented itself with endorsing the contested payment order, asserting that the checks, subject-matter of the claim, are inherently instruments of payment. Furthermore, the ruling asserted that the appellant failed to furnish evidence to substantiate his defence. Consequently, the ruling is marred by deficiencies in reasoning and constitutes a breach of the right of defence. In light of these shortcomings, it is imperative that the ruling be reversed, and the case be remanded for further deliberation, obviating the need for an examination of the remaining grounds for cassation.