The “decisive right” returns to a trader 60,000 dirhams

The Al -Dhafra Court of First Instance obligated the owner of the camel farm to lead to a feed merchant of 60,000 dirhams, the value of feed he bought from it under an oral agreement, and he refrained from paying its value, and the court indicated that the defendant in the case of the case did not attend the session specified for the decisive oath or its response, despite declaring a law, which is what the court promises to perform.

In the details, a feed merchant filed a lawsuit against the owner of a farm, in which he demanded that he be obligated to perform an amount of 60 thousand dirhams and to direct the decisive oath to the defendant and obligate him to fees and expenses, indicating that the defendant bought camel feed from him, and he monitored the amount of the claim and refrained from paying.

For its part, the court decided, before deciding on the issue of the lawsuit, to direct the decisive oath to the defendant in the form of “I swear to God Almighty that I did not buy from the plaintiff of camel feed, and there is no one in my amount of 60 thousand dirhams .. And God is what I say a martyr.”

For its part, the court clarified in the reasons for its ruling that the plaintiff established his demand for the claimed amount as a result of the defendant’s violation of his contractual obligations not to pay the amount of 60 thousand dirhams, the value of the value of camel feed that he bought from him on an oral basis, noting that the constant is that the defendant in the case of the case did not attend the session specified for the decisive oath or its response, despite his law declaring it, which is what the court promises to perform.

The court emphasized that the decisive oath directed at the case had met the conditions of its validity, and there was no arbitrariness or violation of the law or public order, and the court accepted its direction after the response and after its amendment in proportion to the facts of the case, and its content is considered a binding argument for the judge in favor of its request if he abused his opponent or its alliance after returning it to him, and the court ruled that the defendant obliges the defendant to lead to the plaintiff. Dirham, and compel him to expenses.