A businesswoman sued her partner for allegedly withholding her share of profits in a jointly owned company, where she holds a 51% stake. She initially sought the appointment of a corporate expert to review accounts and calculate her alleged dues, claiming her partner, who also manages the company, concealed records and failed to pay her profit share. The defendant and the company counterclaimed, requesting an expert to assess the plaintiff’s unpaid capital and calculate her share of losses. After the 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, plus 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, citing unsound foundations. The Supreme Court found that her insistence on a new expert constituted a substantive defense that could have altered the outcome, and the appellate court 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 other grounds. 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 the case to be returned to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. 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 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.
