The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has upheld a decision in favor of an employer, confirming a former employee’s guilt in abusing power of attorney and financial misconduct.
The legal proceedings began when the employer sued the ex-employee and another person for allegedly misappropriating two cheques.
The employer claimed the former employee misused the granted power of attorney to issue two cheques totaling Dh1,049,600 to another individual, withdrawing the amount from the company’s bank account unjustifiably.
Stay informed with the latest updates. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
The company’s owner demanded the repayment of Dh1,049,600 plus Dh500,000 in damages. The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance partially ruled in favor, ordering the ex-employee and the other individual to jointly repay the full amount plus Dh200,000 for damages.
Though an appeal was filed, the Court of Appeal dismissed it, upholding the original ruling. The appellant then took the case to the Court of Cassation, claiming the judgment was flawed due to:
-
Reliance on a police report not deemed as conclusive evidence.
-
An incomplete and contradictory expert report.
-
Invoices indicating partial payments were overlooked.
-
No charges from Public Prosecution.
Court of Cassation ruling
Upon reviewing the documents, the Court of Cassation ruled on September 3, stating:
-
Court discretion allows evaluation of evidence without mandating a new expert if the current report suffices.
-
The expert report concluded the cheques were issued without valid contracts, agreements, or purchase orders. The appellant’s invoices did not match and contained unauthorized handwritten changes.
-
The appellant’s statements were inconsistent: he denied receiving cheques at one point but later acknowledged transactions.
Thus, the court dismissed the appeal, stating the defense was unconvincing and the objections were merely disputes over evidence evaluation, beyond the Court of Cassation’s purview.
The appeal’s dismissal confirmed both the appellant and the untrustworthy employee are jointly responsible for the owed amounts, rejecting the appellant’s attempt to evade liability.
The appellant was also required to pay court costs and an additional Dh1,000 in legal fees.
