I am both shocked and dismayed by the court’s verdict which I have attached below.

This verdict
does not make any sense whatsoever. The fact that I did not return the keys to the defendant should
be entirely irrelevant in a unique case such as this one. Neither the court nor the land department
nor I were in possession of the defendant’s physical address so it would not have been possible to
return the keys via the public notary. I offered to return the keys to Darren in an email dated
September 14th – a translation of this email was included in the case files. I also tried to contact
Darren by phone on September 8th only to discover that he had blocked my number on his phone,
and the court was made aware of this – there is still a record of this attempt to contact him on my
phone’s memory. Neither myself, nor the court, nor the Land Department had any knowledge of
Darren Anthony Douett’s, or Hamid Reza Barr’s, or IPG Limited’s physical addresses before the first
hearing - ironically, had the court itself in all its might attempted to return the keys to IPG Limited
before the first hearing, it would have failed to do so, so how is someone with my limited means
expected to achieve this.

If returning the keys to landlords at the termination of a tenant’s residency is deemed of the utmost
importance by this court, then why does the court not insist that landlords that enter into contracts
with tenants have their full addresses registered with the Land Department, and more importantly,
why does the landlord’s address not appear on the contract and the Ejari certificate? If the contract
and the Ejari certificate form the basis of the agreement that governs the relationship between the
tenant and the landlord, then surely the telephone number and email address that appear on both
documents should suffice as the means by which to return the keys to landlords as they are the only
contact points on either document. In fact, if we are willing to take this argument further, then it
really should not matter that I am not in possession of Darren Anthony Douett’s or Hamid Reza
Barr’s physical addresses, because they should be expected by law to respond to both emails and
phone calls. If Darren refuses to respond to either phone or email in order to retrieve his keys then
the fact that I am unable to return the keys becomes Darren’s responsibility and not mine. The qism
al taharriyat in the basement of Dubai Courts will not divulge any information regarding the physical
address of a person or corporate entity without an order from a court, a document that this court
has yet to provide. And finally, Darren not only refused to respond to my requests and my legal
notice, he only wrote back to me after hearing from the RDC, in other words after it was too late, but
he never requested that I return the keys in his email dated October 22 nd, 2020. I have included his
letter below in English with this email but I have not translated it as your behaviour to date makes it
very clear that this is a waste of time and money. I have spent some AED 1500 to date on
translations and for what purpose and to what end? If Darren, the landlord’s legal representative,
himself is not concerned with the return of his keys, then why is the court so concerned with this
issue? Surely, then, a more balanced verdict was to provide me with an order to Dubai Courts to
furnish IPG Limited’s physical address (given that even the RDC itself did not have it registered on its
database when the case was first opened) while asking the defendant to return my security deposit
and compensate me for the boiler that remained in disrepair for 7 months and 1 day. Let me be
very clear – Darren is a thief, and a liar, and a bribe taker, and a huckster and I have proof for all
these accusations, and I am surprised that this court is taking his side in this instance.

Also, the verdict falsely states that Darren attended the first of the two hearings. Darren was not
present at the first hearing and only appeared before the judge at the end of the online session
during which the hearing was conducted – the fact that he appeared after the hearing was over does
not mean that he attended it. He was probably looking to avoid any confrontation with myself as he
had been made aware of the fact that I have evidence that he requested a bribe from the real estate
agent, Aziz Bendehmane, that introduced me to Darren. I have attached the WhatsApp recording
with this email in which Aziz admits to Darren’s request. Aziz was trying to steal 50% of Prestige Real
Estate’s 5% commission by keeping the transaction off the books. In order to allow Aziz to do this,
Darren asked Aziz for an AED 1,000 bribe, but I was only made aware of this after having signed the
contract. I reported Aziz to the Dubai Police that in turn instructed me to report him to Prestige Real
Estate so that it may take the necessary action. Prestige Real Estate fired Aziz Bendehmane, and, to
the best of my knowledge, he is now an employee at Harbor Real Estate in Dubai and his mobile
number when I last spoke with him in May of 2019 was 056 391 2149. And so the verdict contains
statements that are patently false - the fact that Darren attended the online session after the actual
hearing was completed (at the end of which the judge asked me to immediately exit the online
session) does not mean that he actually attended the hearing - this is not the same thing; and I only
returned to the online session because I feared that Darren would use my absence as an opportunity
to lie before the judge which is precisely what he did when he told the judge that I was making false
accusations.

Darren is now laughing not only me, but at this court, as its actions allow him to continue to steal
from other tenants. As I have already stated in my previous email below, there is precedent with
regards to Darren not returning security deposits to tenants. One of the landlords has witnessed this
with her own eyes and her mobile number is 055 5137842 and her name is Andrea. Had the court
invested more time in attempting to getting Darren’s hand chopped off rather than blindly applying
an unfair law, then the verdict may have been fair and balanced. In its current state, it is a travesty
of justice.

I am thus asking this court to have this judgement overturned and if the court refuses to do this,
then can either the court or the land department please provide me with the defendant’s physical
address and working mobile number to allow the public notary’s delivery man to contact him and
ensure delivery. The fact the court has issued a verdict without actually providing me with these
contact details and without so much as updating this vital information on the case files for
02/11875/2020 on the RDC’s website is ample proof that the verdict is unbalanced, unfair, and most
importantly incomprehensible. Perhaps this case should be tried in a higher court?

If you refuse to overturn the judgement, then I hope that you are able to live with yourselves as you
have committed an unforgivable error of judgement. Blind application of laws without resorting to
logic and common sense does not serve justice and is thus a waste of time. In Darren’s attached
letter, he describes this route of the courts as “silly”. Do you agree with this statement? Is it not high
time for this court to show Darren his limits?

Best regards,