Nurjah v Nabyt [2023] DIFC SCT 426

January 16, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS

Claim No. SCT 426/2023

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 LEASING TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

BETWEEN

NURJAH

Claimant

and

NABYT

Defendant

---

Hearing :	8 January 2024
Judgment :	16 January 2024

---

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

---

UPON this claim having been called for a hearing with the Claimant and the Defendant in attendance

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 11,303.60.

2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court filing fee in the sum of AED 565.18.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 16 January 2024
At: 9am

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Nurjah (the “Claimant”), the owner of the Unit No. 001 in DIFC, Dubai, UAE (the “Unit”).

2. The Defendant is Nabyt (the “Defendant”), an individual who signed a lease agreement with the previous owner of the Unit.

Background and the Preceding History

3. The underlying dispute arises over a lease agreement dated 6 October 2022 with a tenancy period from 10 October 2022 to 9 October 2023 (the “Agreement”).

4. On 27 October 2023, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) claiming the sum of AED 11,618 following the Defendant’s alleged overstay of the Unit for two days and his failure to return the Unit to the Claimant in its original condition.

5. On 2 November 2023, the Defendant filed his defence to all of the claim.

6. A Consultation was held before SCT Judge Hayley Norton on 21 November and 8 December 2023, however the parties failed to reach an amicable solution.

7. In line with the processes and procedures of the SCT this matter was referred to me for determination pursuant to a hearing that was scheduled before me on 8 January 2024 (the “Hearing”).

The Claim

8. The Claimant submits that the Defendant left the Unit two days late and in a bad condition.

9. The Claimant submits that he charged the Defendant for (1) an additional two days of overstay; (2) contractor fees to return the Unit to its original condition; and (3) a lost access card in the sum of AED 11,618.

Defence

10. The Defendant submits that the Agreement is executed between himself and Numin and not between the Defendant and the Claimant. Therefore, the Defendant submits that the Claimant should not be allowed to seek any claim against the Defendant without any valid relationship, legal support and evidence.

11. The Defendant takes the position that although the Claimant purchased the Unit there is no contractual nor legal relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

12. The Defendant submits that on the last day of the Agreement, the Defendant requested the Claimant to take the keys and handover the Unit. The Claimant fixed the handover meeting for the following day however he did not show up. Therefore, the Defendant submits that he did not overstay for two days as the overstay was caused by the Claimant and not the Defendant.

13. In relation to the access card, the Defendant submits that he only received one access card and agrees to pay the Claimant for one access card which is in the sum of AED 100.

14. In relation to the