A father who sought to recover nearly Dh6.9 million from his son over the proceeds of a family property sale has had his lawsuit rejected by a Dubai court, which ruled that the dispute had already been settled by final judgments.
The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance declared the case inadmissible after finding that previous proceedings involving the same parties, subject matter, and grounds had resulted in a final judgment, preventing the dispute from being reopened.
According to court records, the financial dispute arose after the father granted his son a general power of attorney to manage some of his financial and property affairs.
The case centred on a family property inherited by the father and the son’s grandmother. The property was eventually sold for Dh8.1 million.
The father alleged that his son handled the transaction under the power of attorney and received the proceeds from the sale but failed to transfer the father’s share to his personal bank account.
Instead, according to the father’s claim, the money was deposited into a joint bank account held by both men. He alleged that his son subsequently transferred sums from that account to accounts under his control and used part of the money for personal expenses.
Court documents indicated that the father relied on investigative records and an expert accounting report tracing the movement of funds from the joint account.
He subsequently brought the civil action seeking approximately Dh6.9 million from his son.
However, the court did not reopen the allegations concerning how the property proceeds had been handled.
After examining the history of litigation between the two parties, it found that the current lawsuit concerned the same parties, subject matter, and legal basis as an earlier case that had already been conclusively decided.
The court stressed that a final judgment acquires binding authority and prevents the same dispute from being litigated again.
It further noted that this principle extends to issues essential to the previous ruling, meaning a party cannot reopen the same dispute simply by introducing new documents or advancing different arguments.
As a result, the court declined to reconsider whether the disputed transfers amounted to misappropriation or whether the son’s explanation for handling the funds was justified.
The court ruled that the father’s Dh6.9 million lawsuit was inadmissible due to the binding effect of the earlier final judgment and ordered him to pay the court fees and legal costs.
