This post is also available in: العربية (Arabic)
Challenge of Discrimination No. 8 of 2009 Real Estate
At the public meeting on Sunday, 1/11/2009
(1) It is decided in the court of cassation that the provisions of articles 3, 8, 18, 19, 24 of the local order no. 32/19987 concerning the organization of mediation in the sale, purchase or rental of real estate in the Emirate of Dubai unless licensed by the competent authorities of the municipality must be available in the application of the license to be a natural person to be a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, and if it is a company, all partners must be citizens of the State, Anyone who violates the provisions of this order or the regulations issued in accordance with one of the following sanctions shall be punished: ( 1) warning (2) ——-, which means that the brokerage work in the sale of real estate in the Emirate of Dubai has been regulated by law by rules of public order may not be violated, and the performance of article (3) of regulation No. 85/2006 on the regulation of the register of real estate brokers in the Emirate of Dubai that no one may engage in the mediation activity in the Emirate unless licensed by the authorities Competent and restricted to the register.
(2) It is decided in the court of cassation that the trial court is not obliged to answer the request of the litigants to the request of the prosecution to refer the case to the investigation as long as it finds sufficient in the case papers to form its faith.
(3) It is decided in the court of cassation that the trial court has absolute authority in assessing the judicial evidence and the Court of Cassation does not intervene in relation to the evidence that the trial court infers as long as it is inferred. Arguing with the evidence in order to reach a conclusion other than that taken by the trial court is nothing more than an objective argument that is receding from the control of the Court of Cassation when the ruling has ruled it out for reasons that are in place.
The government’s support
After reviewing the papers and hearing the summary report prepared by him and followed by the hearing Mr. Judge, who is due ———- and after the article,
Since the appeal was filed to meet his formal status,
Whereas, as evidenced by the contested judgment and other papers, the first appellant ———- filed a total real estate suit with the Dubai Court of First Instance against the company challenged against it ———– requesting the judgment of a real estate expert from the Land and Property Department or any other expert to see the books of the land and property department or any other expert for access to the books of the company. The plaintiff and its restrictions and computers and correspondence that took place between them to account the transactions between the two parties and calculate the commission of the plaintiff of the total amounts of these amounts by 2% depending on the business dealing in the real estate custom and the elimination of it, as a result of the expert’s report in addition to the legal interest of 9% of the date of the judicial claim until the full payment, He explained that he is a real estate broker who has already dealt with the plaintiff in the field of marketing and selling its properties for a percentage 2% of the value of the contract and that based on an offer issued by the plaintiff asked the plaintiff to find buyers for the land and units of the land project ———- and in fact brought a group of ——–, which initially bought two units from the plaintiff and then within a week bought 48 units at a total price of 102.860.003 dirhams, i.e. his commission exceeds 15 million dirhams, And then he filed the suit and on 25 February 2009 the court ruled against the case, The plaintiff appealed this ruling on appeal no. 23/2009 real estate, asking him to be sentenced to all his requests and stated in his note that he was authorized by the second appellant company to collect its claims, During the appeal, ——— Real Estate Company (The Second Challenge) filed a request to intervene in the case, describing it as an admission intervention and requesting that it be accepted in a form and in its subject the appointment of the expert owner of the role to calculate the commission due to it as a result of its real estate brokerage in the sale of the land project and units ——— between the appellant and a group ——– represented by its citizen partner and the judgment of its requests to the original appellant on the basis that the appellant (the first) works from which is a company based on a list and licensed by the competent authorities in the conduct of the real estate brokerage and did not require that the appellant (the first) work through it a company based on a list and licensed by the competent authorities in the conduct of the real estate brokerage and did not require that the appellant (the first) work through it a company based on a list and licensed by the competent authorities in the conduct of the real estate brokerage and did not require that the appellant (the first) apply for the law. Employees of the company authorized to practice the profession are also licensed, On 17 May 2009, the Court ruled on the appeal against it and upheld the appeal. And in asking for intervention, it is not permissible to intervene, Both the plaintiff and the company intervened on taking the ruling on the discrimination that is presented in a newspaper that deposited the pen of the book on 22 June 2009 and requested its revocation, The company against which the challenged did not present a motion of defence and, as the appeal was lodged in court in a counselling room, it considered it worthy of consideration and set a hearing for its consideration.
Since the appellant was based on three reasons that the appellant mourns the impugned judgment in violation of the law and the failure to cause and the violation of the fixed papers and the holder that the second appellant company entered into accession and requested at the end of its newspaper the judgment for the appellant The first of all his requests after the appointment of the expert agreed upon by the appellant, but the contested judgment concluded that the said company intervened and therefore it is not acceptable before the Court of Appeal and that the contested judgment withheld himself from discussing the defense of the first appellant and his defenses and request Referring the case to the investigation to prove the working relationship between him and the second appellant, although it is his only means of proving his claim, He also turned about the significance of the two documents submitted by the first appellant about his work with the second appellant and through it he concluded the deal, The second is that it authorized him to order the claim and collect financial rights from the impugned against her, which the agency did not deny between them, which should not be addressed on its own. The contested ruling rejected his claim on the basis that he was not authorized to mediate real estate according to article 3 and beyond from local order No. 32/1987, However, he did not realize that the same article referred to and those contained in the Real Estate Mediation Act No. 58/2006 suspended the non-passport if the person is normal and did not prevent the person from having a licensed moral person working through a natural person who does not have to be licensed, The latter law does not require all employees and a licensed moral person to have another license in their personal capacity as long as they work under his umbrella and any negative or positive behavior of them is given to the moral person, which is the reason for the ruling, which must be overturned.
Since this obituary is in the process of being used in the jurisdiction of this court, it is decided that the provisions of articles 3, 8, 18, 19, 24 of the local order no. 32/19987 concerning the organization of mediation in the sale, purchase or rental of real estate in the Emirate of Dubai unless licensed by the competent municipal authorities and must be available in the application of the license to be a natural person to be a citizen of the United Arab Emirates, even if it is a company. All partners must be citizens of the Uae, and anyone who violates the provisions of this order or the regulations issued in accordance with one of the following sanctions shall be punished by one of the following sanctions: – (1) warning (2) ——-, which means that the brokerage work in the sale of real estate in the Emirate of Dubai has been regulated by law by rules relating to public order may not be violated, and the performance of article (3) of Regulation 85/2006 on the regulation of the register of real estate brokers in the Emirate of Dubai that it is not permissible for any person to engage in mediation activity. In the Emirate unless it is licensed by the competent authorities and restricted to the register, it is decided – and as the court of justice has been done – that the trial court is not obliged to answer the request of the litigants to the request of the prosecution to refer the case to the investigation as long as there is sufficient in the case papers to form its faith, and it is also planned in the judiciary that the trial court has absolute authority in assessing the judicial evidence and the Court of Cassation does not interfere with the evidence that the subject court derives from the evidence as long as it is derived from the court of law. As to what is clear from the evidence in order to reach a conclusion other than that taken by the trial court, it is only an objective argument that is receding from the control of the Court of Cassation when the judgement has been adjudicated for reasons that are in solvent, since the initial judgement for its reasons was the contested verdict and after he adhered to the legal rules on the advanced course, he was dismissed by dismissing the case on his grounds that “the court is not authorized to conduct business. The real estate brokerage in Dubai and that the case papers are not valid, which means that this condition is fulfilled, and therefore the actions of mediation and whatever the point of view in it is contrary to the rules and rulings mentioned above, and therefore the plaintiff’s case is made without the basis of the law, which requires its rejection, and does not prejudice that document. The applicant submitted the plaintiff’s document portfolio at the hearing of 18 January 2009 and the broker with a mandate issued by the company ———- (Second Challenge) to the plaintiff to take over the claim for the collection of financial rights due to him and the company as a result of the transactions made with the company ————– the plaintiff in the current case ….. The plaintiff had restricted his claim in person and based on the newspaper of his claim under section (1) that the plaintiff is a broker and real estate broker who has previously worked with the plaintiff again and again, as the newspaper did not mention the plaintiff that he works for the company ———– or that his contracts with the plaintiff were in her favor, and that the plaintiff attended in person at the hearing of 28/1/2009 and admitted that he currently has a stowand did not have a previous and the same session enabled him to provide the license of the real estate brokerage company but he was unable to provide it, and when he was not, It is established from the commercial license provided by the plaintiff’s documents at the 4/2/2009 hearing that ——- Real Estate company is a limited liability company and that its director is ——— and according to the above, the above authorization does not give the plaintiff the right to claim the rights of ——– as he is not his legal representative and therefore the papers are devoid of evidence that the plaintiff has the right to engage in mediation legally, which is required by the court to dismiss the case, and added the appealed ruling that “the plaintiff’s incriminating papers” In the original suit) he filed the suit in his personal capacity any natural person and did not refer in it from near or far to the request for intervention, stressing that he practiced real estate mediation in his personal capacity, i.e. as a natural person and had nothing to do with any moral person and his requests for judgment came to him as a result of the report of the expert who requested his scar … Since the documents were fixed and the plaintiff’s decision that when he initiated the mediation, the prosecution was not authorized to do so. Since the appealed judgement has complied with the above consideration . . . If this was the conclusion of the court of the case, it was based on what has a fixed origin in the papers and contains the implicit response projected for all that the appellant raised and did not change that. It was raised in the face of the obituary that the intervention of the second appellant is an intervention of accession and not a sit-in, since, whatever the opinion in it, is not productive in the dispute after the appealed verdict has ended , correctly, to reject the appeal and support the appealed judgment, and therefore the obituary on the judgment of the foregoing is unfounded.
The court ruled that the appeal should be rejected and that the appellants should be obliged to pay and that the insurance amount be confiscated.