A father in the Emirates is judicially obligated to pay 10,000 dirhams because of his son
Recently, a father in the Emirates was obliged, pursuant to a judicial ruling from the Ras Al Khaimah Court, to pay a sum of 10,000 dirhams because of his son, as the son had seized the sum from a car during the night hours.
Because of his son, a parent in the Emirates is required by the local courts to pay a fine of 10,000 dirhams.
Recently, a judge in Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates, ordered a man to pay his son a fine of 10,000 dirhams because the man's son had stolen the money from a car while it was parked overnight. The father was forced to comply with the verdict because his son had stolen the money.
Ras Al Khaimah Court obligates a man to pay 10,000 dirhams and the lawsuit fees and expenses
A guy is ordered by the Ras Al Khaimah Court to pay ten thousand dirhams in addition to the fees and costs associated with the action, After his "juvenile" son stole money from someone's vehicle while they were sleeping at night, an Arab parent took on the responsibilities of a crime that his kid had committed. The Juvenile Misdemeanor Court came to the conclusion that the accused juvenile should be found guilty, that he should get a reprimand, and that he should be turned over to his guardian so that the guardian can look after him. After the ruling was made official, the plaintiff sought that the defendant be recognized as his son's natural guardian. The defendant refused. Because the minor was the one who perpetrated the theft and is therefore liable for his acts, the judge ordered that he be compensated the equivalent of 10,000 dirhams, which is the worth of the money that had been stolen illegally. The Ras Al Khaimah Civil First Instance reached a decision that required the defendant, in his capacity as the natural guardian of his minor son, to make restitution to the plaintiff for the sum that had been stolen and to pay the associated court costs. The case and all of its associated costs, including fees paid to attorneys.
A child steals 10,000 dirhams from a car at night
During the night, a child gets away with stealing 10,000 dirhams from an automobile, The plaintiff stated in the court documents that the Public Prosecution in Ras Al Khaimah had submitted the defendant's son to the Juvenile Misdemeanor Court because the defendant's son had stolen an amount of money from inside the defendant's automobile while it was parked overnight. The judge made a finding that found the defendant guilty, that he should receive a reprimand for his actions, that he should be turned over to his guardian to ensure his continued care, and that the ruling is now conclusive. The plaintiff made a request that a determination be made in his favor, taking into account the fact that the defendant is the natural guardian of his minor son, who committed the theft and is responsible for his acts, and that the defendant should be required to compensate the plaintiff the equivalent of 10,000 dirhams, which is the value of the amount that was unlawfully stolen.
A father was forced to pay 10,000 dirhams stolen by his son
A parent was ordered to pay back 10,000 dirhams that his kid had taken from him, It was mentioned in the reasoning behind the court's decision that Article 313 of the Civil Transactions Law provides that no one is liable for the act of another person. This was included in the decision's merits. However, the court has the authority, on the basis of the request of the person who was harmed, and if he believes it to be reasonable, to compel the following individuals, depending on the specifics of the case, to offer the debtor's guarantee for the individual who was responsible for the harm. She went on to say that it was discovered through the criminal ruling that the juvenile defendant had stolen a sum of money amounting to 10,000 dirhams, and the ruling became established according to a final criminal ruling, and it has authority before the civil court as it is a chapter on the common basis of the criminal and civil lawsuits represented by the fault of the defendant's son, and so the elements of tort liability were fulfilled from the act of the defendant's son stealing the money. She also stated that the ruling became established according The plaintiff suffered harm as a consequence of the defendant's son causing him harm, and the plaintiff also suffered pain as a result of the defendant seizing his money.