Ayman shape
A brother caused his sister due to a photo contract, as the sister intervened to help her brother in his project, and appeared as a buyer to cut a land in partnership with another, but her brother sold one of them without paying her value to his partner who asked the sister to return 90 thousand dinars that she did not pay.
After the ruling of the court of first degree obligating it, it was able, with the assistance of lawyer Mohamed Al -Mannai, in the appeal, to prove the sham of the contract, as the Civil Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the case would not be accepted in the face of the appellant.
The incident began to file a partner with a lawsuit before the Civil Court, in which he stated that he agreed with the defendant to make subscribers to buy two plots of 100 thousand dinars for each piece for the purpose of trafficking, and the plaintiff paid the full value of the two pieces, while the defendant pledged to pay their share in favor of the plaintiff, and the two properties were registered in their name, and the plaintiff tried in various friendly ways to carry the defendant to pay the value of her share, but she was satisfied with the amount of 10 thousand dinars In procrastination.
During the month of April of the year 2024, the plaintiff was surprised that the defendant sold the half -registered in her name in both properties, which was damaged by the plaintiff, which was his inability to implement the commercial project, so the court referred the case to the investigation, listened to the witnesses and ruled that the defendant would lead to the prosecutor of 91,000 dinars.
The appellant stabbed the ruling, and said that it was agreed to replace her brother, because her brother had a housing request, and her agent, lawyer Mohamed Al -Mannai, paid the photocopies of the two contracts, and that the real party in that sale is her brother, and that she was apparently replaced.
The appellant against him presented his only evidence that he stated to the court that he did not attend the incident of the appellant’s agreement against him with the appellant, as the witness stated that he had contacted the appellant to mediate the solution of the dispute, so I told him that the solution to the dispute would be with her brother, and the witness stated that he does not know the relationship between the appellant against him and the appellant, as the brother of the appellant acknowledged that he is the original party, because of the request for housing. The appellant entered his sister as a pictorial partner.
The court said in the reasons for the ruling that it was not reassured about what was stated in the testimony of the witness of evidence after he acknowledged that he did not attend the agreement between the two parties, and reassures the testimony of the second witness, “the appellant’s brother.”
The court ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the matter to cancel the appealed judgment of what he ruled and the judiciary again not to accept the lawsuit against the appellant, and to include the appellant against him fees, expenses and law fees.
