Similarity in names costs a company owner 50 thousand dirhams

The Al Ain Court of First Instance ruled to oblige a company owner to pay the owner of another company an amount of 50 thousand dirhams, the value of a “building violation” that he had paid in his name as a result of the similarity in names between the two companies.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against another, in which he requested that he be obliged to return the amount of 50 thousand dirhams, and the amount of 10 thousand dirhams in compensation for procrastination in payment and loss of profits, in addition to fees and expenses and for legal fees, indicating that he owns a company similar in name to the plaintiff’s company. Accordingly, as a result, there was confusion regarding a building violation that the defendant company had caused, and his company was fined the amount of the claim.

The plaintiff indicated that the defendant was handed over an amount of 50 thousand dirhams, the value of the fine, and the agreement between them was that in the event of acquittal of the violation paid, the amount would be returned to the plaintiff, pointing out that the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the ruling and acquitted of the adjudicated fine, but the defendant institution and its owner did not return the amount. After the acquittal.

The defendant commented that in 2019, an arrest warrant was issued against him, and a seizure of funds, regarding a violation committed by the plaintiff, and that he and his partner in the organization paid the fine to cancel the circular issued against them, not the plaintiff company, and that after paying the fine, the plaintiff handed them the value of the fine.

For its part, the court stated that what is clear from the papers is that the defendant did not return the amounts he received after the acquittal, nor did he prove to the court that he was absolved of the amount, which required him to pay the amount in question.

The court rejected the compensation request, noting that the plaintiff company did not provide proof that there were damages to it, and the court did not find a basis in the papers for its present request through which it could determine the value of the damages and losses it suffered, which makes the request based on no evidence.

The court ruled to oblige the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 50 thousand dirhams, according to the reasons and expenses, and rejected all other requests.