The Federal Supreme Court overturned an appeal judgment that had dismissed a lawsuit filed by a businesswoman against her partner over alleged withholding of her share of profits in a jointly owned company, where she holds a 51% stake.
The top court instructed that the case be returned to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. Court documents show the plaintiff initially sought the appointment of a corporate expert to review and settle accounts and calculate her alleged dues. She claimed that her partner, who also serves as the company’s manager, had withheld company records and failed to pay her share of profits.
The defendant and the company filed a counterclaim, requesting an expert to assess the plaintiff’s alleged nonpayment of capital and to calculate her share of any losses incurred.
After the two cases were joined, an accounting expert was appointed and submitted a report. The plaintiff later amended her claims, seeking joint and several payments of Dh3.82 million plus 9% annual interest, as well as an additional Dh200,000 in compensation from her partner.
The court of first instance dismissed the case as premature, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Challenging the ruling before the Federal Supreme Court, the plaintiff argued that her right of defense was undermined when the lower court excluded the expert’s report, claiming it was based on unsound foundations. She also contended that the Court of Appeal ignored her request to appoint a new expert or expert panel under the Evidence Law in civil and commercial transactions.
The Supreme Court upheld her appeal, citing Article 121 of Federal Decree-Law No. 35 of 2022, which allows courts at any stage to remedy deficiencies in an expert’s work or to appoint additional experts to reassess assignments.
The court reaffirmed that any substantive request or defense capable of altering the case outcome must be addressed with specific reasoning, failing which the judgment is deficient. It found that the plaintiff’s insistence on a new expert constituted a substantive defense that could have changed the outcome, and the appellate court had failed to address it.
As a result, the Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal, without ruling on the remaining grounds of appeal.
