UAE Court rejects Khaleeji Man lawsuit against his brother for this reason
The Ras Al Khaimah Court of First Instance recently issued a verdict dismissing a lawsuit filed by a Gulf man against his brother, who was accused of arbitrary prosecution.
The court ruled in favour of the defendant, citing a lack of evidence to substantiate the plaintiff's claims.
The plaintiff contended that his brother had filed a complaint against him, accusing him of assault and threats. Although the plaintiff was subsequently acquitted in the criminal court, he argued that his brother intentionally attached false accusations to him, filed malicious complaints, and summoned him for investigations with the aim of causing psychological and material harm.
In the claim statement, the plaintiff asserted that his brother's actions amounted to an abuse of the right to litigation, causing him both moral and material damages. Seeking compensation, he demanded 30,000 dirhams for the suffering he endured, citing established judicial jurisprudence.
The defendant's representative countered the claims, asserting that the lawsuit lacked both legal and factual merit. The defense argued that the papers failed to provide any evidence substantiating the alleged harm suffered by the plaintiff. Seeking the dismissal of the case, the defence emphasised the importance of allowing the defendant to exercise his legitimate right to litigate.
The court, in its judgement, affirmed that the defendant had exercised his lawful right to litigate and file a complaint against his brother without demonstrating arbitrariness or an intent to harm. It clarified that the criminal order acquitting the plaintiff in a separate legal proceeding could not be considered evidence of the defendant's dishonesty or an abuse of the right to litigation. The court concluded that the criminal order lacked relevance in the civil court and, therefore, rejected the case in its entirety.
This ruling highlights the court's commitment to a thorough examination of evidence and its insistence on a clear connection between the alleged harm and the actions of the accused party.
