[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Dubai International Financial Centre
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Dubai International Financial Centre >> Naif v Najib [2024] DIFC SCT 484 (18 September 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ae/cases/DIFC/2024/DSCT_484.html Cite as: [2024] DIFC SCT 484

[New search] [Help]

Naif v Najib [2023] DIFC SCT 484

September 18, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No: SCT 484/2023

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum,
Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

BETWEEN

NAIF

Claimant

and

NAJIB

Defendant

---

Hearing :	8 August 2024
Further submission :	15 August 2024
Judgment :	18 September 2024

---

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

---

UPON a Hearing having been listed before H.E Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 8 August 2024, with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives in attendance

AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claimant’s claim shall be dismissed.

2. There shall be no order as to costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 18 September 2024
At: 12pm

THE REASONS

Parties

1. The Claimant is Naif (the “Claimant”), a company registered and located in Dubai, UAE.

2. The Defendant is Najib (the “Defendant”), a company registered and Located in Dubai, UAE.

Background and Procedural History

3. The underlying dispute is in regards to unpaid invoices arising from the Executive Annual Maintenance Contract signed by the Claimant and the Defendant on 9 September 2020 (the “Agreement”).

4. On 29 November 2023, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking payment from the Defendant for alleged unpaid invoices arising in the amount of AED 253,969.74.

5. On 3 May 2024, the Defendant filed a defence.

6. The parties met for a Consultation with SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 1 and 15 March 2024, and 4 and 26 April 2024 but were unable to reach a settlement.

7. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 8 August 2024, at which the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives were in attendance.

Claim

8. The Claimant submits that as per the Agreement, the Defendant engaged the Claimant to carry out the scope of work (“Services”) listed in Clauses 2, 3.1 to 3.11 to 16 for restaurants operated by the Defendant in the United Arab Emirates. As per the Agreement, the Claimant was engaged by the Defendant in carrying out preventive and reactive jobs relating to electrical supply, equipment, and electrical distribution services; water supply, sanitary ware, and drainage services; and air conditioning supply and associated equipment services. The Claimant had quoted a total fee of AED 382,872 which amount is inclusive of VAT for the Services sought to be availed of by the Defendant. As per the Contract, the Claimant invoiced the Defendant on a monthly basis after providing the relevant Services. The Contract also stipulates that there would be additional charges for any additional Services provided by the Claimant to the Defendant, over and beyond those mentioned in the contract. The details of the additional scope of work can be found under the sub-head “Additional Services” and Clause 3.12 of the Contract.

9. The Claimant submits that it started providing Services to the Defendant and upon completion of the agreed Services specified in the Contract and any additional services requested by Defendant to their satisfaction, the Claimant prepared a Planned Preventive Maintenance Program (“PPMP”) Report as per Clause 3.1 of the contract pertaining to PPMP Report. These reports were then shared with the Defendant’s team for inspection and their approval confirming the completion of the Service.

10. The Claimant submits that the Defendant ought to settle the payment for the Services received within 15 days of receiving the Claimant’s invoice. However, the Defendant failed to pay and settle several invoices.

11. The Claimant adds that on 1 February 2021, the Claimant sent an email to the Defendant along with a Statement of Account dated 31January 2021 for the outstanding payments. In this email, the Claimant requested the Defendant to make necessary payments within the first week of February so that they could resume the Services.

12. The Claimant submits that they sent numerous reminders and up until 15 August 2023. The Defendant responded after the email of 15 August 2023 requesting for clarity on the invoices raised by the Claimant and asked for the reports. However, the Defendant failed to settle the invoices.

13. Therefore, the Claimant filed a claim claiming the total sum of AED 253,969.74 of unpaid invoices plus 5% of the defaulted payment as additional charge/penalty for the delay by the Defendant, legal interest at the rate of 9% per annum and legal costs.

Defence

14. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to provide the required documents along with the evidence such as mall permits and police permits to carry out the maintenance as per the Agreement.

15. The Defendant submits that the Claimant provided unsigned reports and invoices by the Defendant and has not provided permits which is evidence that the Claimant carried out the Services.

16. The Defendant submits that they have requested the Claimant to provide such evidence. However, due to lack of evidence, this claim should be dismissed.

Discussion

17. At the hearing, the Claimant confirmed that the Agreement started in September 2020 and ended in May 2021, pursuant to which they have received partial payment and the remaining amount is the sum of AED 253,969.74.

18. The Claimant at the hearing confirmed that the Services must be carried out at night and require mall permits and police permits to enter the mall after closing hours.

19. The Court requested the Claimant to provide evidence of the Services carried out along with the required mall permits and police permits to enter the premises and the invoices and reports for that period specifically for the unpaid Services.

20. However, the Claimant failed to provide such evidence of the Services carried out and the cost of each service but requested the remainder sum of the Agreement without providing the required evidence for their claim.

21. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence, I find that this claim shall be dismissed.

Conclusion

22. In light of the aforementioned, the Claimant’s claim shall be dismissed due to lack of evidence.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.