«Appeal» upheld a preliminary judgment to rescind the contract and return the money to the buyer

Dubai Discrimination settles dispute over two plots of land worth AED 100 million

The "Appeal" confirmed that the criteria for the jurisdiction of Dubai courts to hear the case are available. Archival

The Dubai Court of Cassation is hearing a legal dispute handled by the Court of First Instance and Appeal over the sale of two plots of land in the Palm Jumeirah area for about AED 100 million.

The details of the dispute included a legal clash between its parties, which dealt in part with a penal part resorted to by the owner of the land to prove the falsification of sales contracts, and his exposure to fraud by the plaintiff who ruled in his favor in the first two stages of litigation, and the second defendant.

In detail, a businessman (Gulf) filed a lawsuit in which he demanded the nullity and termination of the contract for the sale of two plots of land, between his company and a (Gulf) person, who sold them in favor of their owner in what is legally known as the sale of curiosity, in November 2011.

The buyer requested refund and payment of AED 145 million, in addition to AED 50 million in compensation for material and moral damages.

He pointed out in the lawsuit newspaper that he bought from the second defendant's company two plots of land worth 95 million and 200 thousand dirhams, under a curious sale contract in favor of the landowner, a Gulf businessman «the first defendant», pointing out that he authorized this contract due to the link of lineage and affinity with the second defendant.

The plaintiff said that he paid the price of the two plots of land to the second defendant (the curious seller) to pay them to the landowner (the first defendant) and obtained documents and receipt vouchers stating that the owner had received the money, but he did not deliver the land as agreed despite paying its value.

For its part, the court referred the lawsuit to an expert, after the defendants announced the «curious seller» and the owner of the land, but they did not appear before the court, and the expert report concluded that there is a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and each of the first and second defendants, and after considering the lawsuit, the Commercial Court of First Instance ruled to terminate the sale contract, and obligated the defendants jointly to refund 95 million and 200 thousand dirhams to the plaintiff, with a legal interest of 5% from the date of the judicial claim.

The first instance judgment was not accepted by the second defendant, the "curious seller", who appealed it before the Court of Appeal, demanding that it be annulled and that the lawsuit not be heard due to the passage of time "more than 10 years from the date of sale".

He stated in his appeal that the nature of his relationship with the other parties to the case, "the buyer" and the "owner of the land", is a "virtue relationship", meaning that he sold the land to the former for the benefit of the latter without remuneration, handed over the full amounts to the owner, and fulfilled all his obligations.

For his part, the first defendant "the owner of the land" appealed against the first instance judgment, noting that he accidentally learned of the lawsuit on April 28, 2022, 11 years after the date of signing the sale contract, pointing out that he submitted a request to the Court of First Instance to open the pleading again as he is an original party to it, but that was on the last day before the Eid al-Fitr holiday, and the court ignored his request.

The «landowner» demanded in a sub-appeal list of the intertwined lawsuit, the judiciary to invalidate the appealed judgment for not holding the litigation against his company, because the judgment was issued without a valid announcement, and to return the case to the Court of First Instance for consideration again.

In his appeal, he revealed the falsification of the sale contract dated November 2011, the same contract that was terminated by the judgment of the first degree, in addition to the rest of the contracts, receipts and receipt vouchers submitted in the lawsuit included forged signatures, demanding the assignment of an expert committee to match the fonts and verify the credibility of the signatures and documents.

The appellant "the owner of the land" questioned the nature of the relationship between the other parties to the lawsuit, demanding scrutiny of it, noting that he was the victim of manipulation, and also requested evidence that the plaintiff paid the alleged sale price, in the sale contract ruled to be terminated, and the mechanism for delivering a price for the land, whether through a transfer or bank deposit.

The judgment of the first degree was also not accepted by the plaintiff in the first instance lawsuit «the buyer», demanding that the Court of Appeal cancel it and oblige the defendants to pay an amount of 145 million and 200 thousand dirhams, and a judgment to compensate 50 million dirhams for him and his company.

The appeal phase later developed, with the "buyer" and the curious seller "filing a memorandum waiving the appeal, thus legally dropping the subsidiary appeals filed by the "landowner".

The landowner demanded through an appeal submitted by his company to suspend the consideration of the appeal until a criminal complaint related to the commission of the other parties to the lawsuit crimes of forgery, the use of forged documents before the courts, fraud and misleading the judiciary to obtain the judgment issued by the Court of First Instance, pointing to the invalidity of the judgment for issuing it without the company announcing it correctly, as the other parties to the lawsuit deliberately announced it at an incorrect address, and through an unused, effective or belonged to the appellant company.

After hearing the case, the Dubai Commercial Court of Appeal concluded that the criteria for the jurisdiction of the Dubai courts were met in the case, in response to the landowner's company's plea that it lacked jurisdiction.

The court also found that the litigation was left in two appeals filed against the first instance judgment, by the "buyer" and the "curious seller", thus dropping the subsidiary appeals filed by the landowner and his company.

Regarding the argument of the landowner's company not to declare it correctly, by deliberately choosing an ineffective or correct e-mail, the Court of Appeal countered that the e-mail it advertised was the same as the one in its commercial license attached to the papers and did not deny that it was hers, and adhered to a statement sent without acceptable evidence that it was not activated, and therefore the court considers that the declaration was correct.

The Dubai Court of Cassation is due to decide the final stage of litigation in the coming days.

• The landowner challenged the validity of contracts, receipts and judicial declaration.