Person Over The Legal Age Has The Right To Institute Litigation Proceedings, And Also Be A Subject To Litigation, In All Matters Related To Personal Status

Case Summary: Plaintiff files the instant case against his ex-wife defendant, requesting the court to reduce the custodial rent required to be paid by him, and declare that he is the owner of a jointly owned property, and claim compensation from the defendant. The plaintiff explained that the couple was married and subsequently divorced and he was required to pay the custodial rent. He states that the residence is a 5-bedroom villa, which is beyond the requirement of the defendant and the daughter. The plaintiff added that his income had not increased and he also has another family to support. As the rent was not compatible with his financial capacity, he requested the court to reduce the rent payable by him.

The plaintiff also requested the court to grant him ownership of a jointly acquired property, stating that the defendant had failed to pay her share of the property, forcing him to pay the full loan amount that was obtained for the property. He also states that the defendant had obstructed him from renting out the property, further alleviating his financial stress. The plaintiff requests the court to charge the defendant to pay damages to him in this regard. Alternatively, the plaintiff requests that the defendant be charged with paying her share of the price of the property, and also requests the appointment of an expert to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties with regard to the jointly owned property.

The defendant contends the claims made by the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was well off, with multiple incomes. On the other hand, due to the rise in cost of living, the child support provided by the plaintiff was insufficient, and the defendant was unemployed. Therefore, she requests the court to increase the child support amount. Regarding the jointly owned property, the defendant claims that the down payment for the property was paid by her. Additionally, she was not given any share in the rental proceeds for many years. Therefore, she refused to consent to leasing out the property in the previous year.

First Instance Court findings: As neither party requested the application of the personal law of their home country, the UAE laws were applied to the case. Regarding the plaintiff’s request to decrease the rent towards the custodial residence, and the defendant’s request to increase the child support, the court rejected these requests on the ground of inadmissibility. The child in question had attained the age of 18 before the pleadings were concluded in the case, a fact which was not reported by either party. The court stated that it was established in the rulings of the Court of Cassation that any person over the age of eighteen may file a case or be subject to litigation in personal status matters. As these procedures were related to public order, the matter may be raised by the litigants, or by the court, or by the litigants directly before the court of cassation.

Regarding the jointly owned property, the court appointed an expert to provide its report on the matter. Based on this report, the court stated that the property registry maintained by the land department reflecting equal joint ownership will have absolute evidentiary value against all parties unless it is proven to be the result of fraud or forgery. Additionally, the report showed that the primary contract was entered into in 2003 and the final contract was concluded in 2015. The court also considered the defendant’s statement that the selling company had leased the property between the period of the two contracts, giving the proceeds of the lease to the plaintiff. As the date of registration, which reflects equal ownership, was after the final date of payment of the last loan installment, the court accepted the defendant’s claim that the loan was paid from the lease amount. As this lease amount was entitled equally to both parties, the plaintiff’s claim that he alone bore the loan payment was rejected by the court. Accordingly, the court ruled to reject the plaintiff’s request to charge the defendant to pay her share of the property price, or to declare that the plaintiff is the full owner of the property.

With regard to the claim for damages, the court observed that the defendant had admitted to not consenting to leasing out the property in 2019. She produced a lease document that was not registered with the land department. Consequently, the court was satisfied that the property was leased out before 2019. The court also observed that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he paid the defendant her share of the rental proceeds or show any agreement between them on how the property will be used or invested. Therefore, the court ruled that there is no obligation on the Defendant to agree to rent the property. By refusing to rent the property, she had exercised a right granted to her by the law and she is not liable for prejudicing the Plaintiff or others as a result of her exercise of her right.

The plaintiff’s request to charge the defendant for damages for failing to cancel the residency of the Defendant under his sponsorship was rejected by the court as the plaintiff had failed to show any administrative requirement that disallowed the plaintiff himself from canceling said sponsorship.

Court of Appeal findings: The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance. He stated that the decision regarding inadmissibility of request due to the age of the child is incorrect as it disregarded the fact that the child is in the custody of the defendant and the execution file pursuant to which he was depositing the rent validated his case. This contention was rejected by the court as the appealed ruling was based on sound legal rule and issued on justifiable grounds. The plaintiff also faulted the court’s decision to reject his requests with regard to the jointly owned property despite establishing that he solely paid the loan installments and there was no proof of any rentals being obtained in the expert report. The court reiterated the observations of the trial court and stated that the expert report did not show any proof that the defendant owed the plaintiff any amount as requested by the plaintiff in the case. The request for damages was also rejected by the court as the plaintiff had failed to establish any harm. The appeal was duly dismissed.

Court of Cassation findings: The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. He contended the ruling of inadmissibility of his request as he had failed to bring the case directly against his daughter, stating that when the case was filed, she was not yet of legal age. The court stated that his argument was invalid as it is established in the rulings of the Cassation Court that any person over the age of eighteen may file a case or be subject to litigation in all matters related to personal status, including custody and child support, which means that the eligibility to litigate in these matters is established for everyone who has reached the age of eighteen. Accordingly, such a person holds the capacity to file a Personal Status case or a case be filed against them. It was also established in the rulings of the Court that the argument of lack of capacity for the reason for which these instructions were issued is related to litigation procedures related to public order and the Court shall accept it, if raised by the litigants and shall also raise on its own.

Regarding the Plaintiff’s contention that he should be made the full owner of the jointly owned property, or alternatively the defendant should be charged with the payment of her share of the price of the property, the court stated that it is established in the land department and the title documents that both parties are equal owners of the property. Moreover, the registration of ownership was done after the last loan installment was paid. The defendant’s claim that the loan was paid from the rental proceeds were substantiated by documents and by the fact that the plaintiff had registered the property in both the parties’ names after the payment of the loan. Moreover, as one of the lease contracts was not registered with the land department, it indicated that there were other unregistered lease contracts that provided rental incomes to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also failed to show that these rents were shared with the defendant. Accordingly, the court ruled to reject these contentions.

The ruling regarding damages to be paid by the defendant was also upheld as the plaintiff was unable to establish the defendant’s fault, and the case documents lacked evidence of the validity of plaintiff’s allegations.

In conclusion, it is an established legal principle that any person over the age of 18 has the right to initiate litigation and be subject to litigation, in all matters relating to personal status. Furthermore, the argument of inadmissibility of the case due to this reason may be invoked by the parties to the case, or by the court itself.

Cassation Appeal No. 254 of 2023, Personal Status Cassation

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.