The Abu Dhabi Court issued a court ruling against the father of a student in a school and fined him 53 thousand dirhams, the value of school fees. a school in abu dhabi court punishes a student's father
The Abu Dhabi court ruled against the father of a student in a school and fined him 53,000 dirhams for the cost of school fees.
A guardian's fine of Dh53,000 tuition fees.
The Abu Dhabi Family Court and civil and administrative proceedings ordered a guardian to pay 53,000 and 631 dhara to a school, where he did not commit himself to paying his children enrolled in school for two consecutive years.
A school in Abu Dhabi complains about a student's father's school fees.
In more specifics, a school sued a parent and asked that the defendant pay the plaintiff 53,000 and 631 dirhams plus interest at 5% per year from the date of the suit, along with quick and easy entry and payment, because the defendant had agreed to register and teach the plaintiff's children for two academic years and was keeping track of the amount claimed.
The court in Abu Dhabi imposes a fine on the father of a student of 53,000 dirhams.
On the merits of its judgement, the Court explained that the fixed sum of the papers was set aside on the defendant as a result of the enrolment of his children in school, that he had not paid them or provided the documents of his innocence, that the defendant had attended and had not provided the benefit of the payment, and that, therefore, it considered that he was busy with that sum in favour of the plaintiff, which the Court required him to perform for it.
An Abu Dhabi court punishes a student's father for school fees.
On the request for interest, the court stated that the cases in which the legislator had authorised the judge to benefit from the contract and his authority had been determined by the legislator in the event that the debtor was granted a time limit for payment and the case of the order for assessment of the amount awarded, as well as the case in which the judge identified the debtor's delay in payment, all of which were legally and legally indispensable and legally specified in that context. The judge could not go beyond it; since the case in question was not one of the previous cases, the court had rejected the plaintiff's request in that regard.
