DCC 52/2004/1

This case involved a request to cancel a provision seizure of moveables from a restaurant on the basis the restaurant was not owned by the debtors and was a different business. A key issue was whether an appeal by cassation was allowed in such cases and the time limit for appeal

Background Facts

An Appellant filed suit No. 875/2002 against the Respondents requesting the Court suspend execution procedures No. 2930/2001 and prove their ownership of confiscated assets estimated at 10590 AED, in addition to cancelling a provisional seizure on the basis that under a, the Defendant bank imposed an executive seizure on the movables in their restaurant by considering that they were the interdicted party, however the seizure was wrong because there was a similarity in some parts of the name but they were not the same.

Proceedings:

Court of first instance - Decision 28/5/2003

The Court of First Instance cancelled the seizure of movable property under execution 2930/2001 and considered it as it was never there based on the previous ruling on appeal no. 321/2002 to annul the sentence being executed. The First Defendant, the bank appealed this judgment.