A man has been ordered by the court to pay Dh60,000 in compensation after repeatedly contacting another individual through phone calls, which resulted in significant emotional distress for the victim.
Man fined Dh60,000 after repeatedly making phone calls that caused emotional distress.
The matter began as a criminal complaint after a man reported that he had been repeatedly contacted through persistent phone calls that he described as unwanted and distressing. According to the case details, the continuous nature of these calls was found to have caused significant inconvenience, emotional strain, and mental discomfort to the victim.
During the criminal proceedings, the court examined evidence showing that the defendant had intentionally engaged in repeated communication that went beyond ordinary interaction and amounted to harassment. Based on the findings, he was convicted of creating nuisance and disturbing the peace of another individual through sustained and deliberate phone contact.
Following the criminal judgment, the case also moved into civil proceedings, where financial compensation was sought for the harm suffered. The court ultimately ruled that the defendant must pay a total of Dh60,000 in damages. This amount was structured in stages, reflecting earlier and additional rulings connected to the same incident.
Court documents indicate that an initial compensation award of Dh51,000 had already been granted by the criminal court as a provisional measure in favour of the victim. Later, in the civil case, the court added a further Dh9,000, bringing the total compensation to Dh60,000. This final amount was intended to address both the psychological impact and the moral harm experienced by the complainant.
In his civil claim, the victim had originally requested Dh100,000 in damages. He argued that the repeated calls were not accidental or incidental but were part of a deliberate pattern of behaviour aimed at causing distress. He stated that the persistent nature of the contact disrupted his peace of mind and resulted in emotional suffering over a sustained period.
The court reviewed the evidence presented, including communication records and testimony, to assess the extent of the harm caused. It concluded that the defendant’s actions were intentional and constituted an infringement on the victim’s personal well-being. The repeated nature of the calls was a key factor in establishing the seriousness of the conduct.
Legal proceedings highlighted that such behaviour falls under actions that can be considered harassment when it is repetitive and unwanted, especially when it affects an individual’s mental and emotional state. The judgment reinforced the principle that personal communication tools, such as phone calls, must not be misused to disturb or intimidate others.
The court’s final decision to award compensation was based on both the psychological impact and the need to provide redress for the victim. While the amount granted was lower than the sum originally requested, the ruling acknowledged the presence of emotional harm and affirmed the victim’s right to seek legal remedy.
The case also demonstrated how civil claims can run alongside criminal convictions, allowing victims to pursue financial compensation in addition to criminal accountability. In this instance, the criminal conviction established wrongdoing, while the civil ruling determined the monetary value of the harm suffered.
Overall, the judgment underscored that repeated unwanted communication can carry legal consequences, particularly when it results in emotional distress. It also reinforced the responsibility of individuals to respect personal boundaries in all forms of contact, including telephone communication.
The dispute between the two parties had already gone through criminal proceedings before it reached the civil court. In the earlier case, the defendant was found guilty of engaging in repeated and unwanted phone communication that the court determined amounted to intentional nuisance and disturbance. The criminal court concluded that his conduct was deliberate and had caused inconvenience and emotional strain to the complainant.
After the criminal judgment was issued, the matter did not end there. The victim later pursued a separate civil claim seeking financial compensation for the harm he said he had endured. In this civil lawsuit, he argued that the repeated calls had caused him significant psychological distress and affected his sense of peace and personal comfort over time.
However, during the civil proceedings, the defendant challenged the claim. He requested that the case be dismissed, arguing that the legal requirements for civil liability had not been properly proven. According to his defence, the victim had already received compensation through the earlier criminal ruling, and therefore, he claimed that no additional financial award should be granted in the civil case.
The court, however, carefully reviewed this argument and considered it in light of established legal principles. It explained that criminal judgments can have a direct impact on related civil disputes, particularly when the criminal ruling has already confirmed key facts about the case. These include whether the offence occurred, how it was legally classified, and whether the accused person was responsible for the actions in question.
In this instance, the court noted that the earlier criminal judgment had already determined that the defendant had engaged in repeated phone calls that were intended to disturb and harass the victim. This finding had already been established beyond doubt in the criminal case, and therefore could not be re-examined in the civil proceedings.
Based on this legal principle, the civil court stated that it was bound by the conclusions reached in the criminal case regarding the defendant’s actions. As a result, the question of whether the defendant had caused the disturbance was no longer open for debate in the civil lawsuit. The focus of the civil case was therefore limited to assessing the extent of harm suffered by the victim and determining appropriate compensation.
The court referred to official case records and the earlier criminal ruling, both of which confirmed that the defendant had intentionally engaged in repeated phone contact that resulted in distress to the complainant. These findings formed the basis of the civil court’s assessment of liability and damages.
After examining the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the victim had indeed suffered non-material harm. This type of harm, often referred to as moral or emotional damage, includes psychological stress, anxiety, and disruption to personal peace caused by another person’s actions.
The court emphasized that such harm is legally recognized and can form the basis for compensation, even if it does not involve physical injury or financial loss. In this case, the repeated nature of the phone calls and their impact on the victim’s emotional well-being were considered sufficient to justify compensation.
Taking all factors into account, the court determined that a fair and reasonable amount of compensation for the harm suffered would be Dh60,000. This figure was reached after evaluating the severity of the distress, the duration of the conduct, and its overall impact on the victim’s mental state.
However, the court also took into consideration the fact that a portion of this compensation had already been awarded during the criminal proceedings. In the earlier judgment, the criminal court had granted Dh51,000 as a form of temporary compensation linked to the same incident.
Since this amount had already been paid or recognized as part of the earlier ruling, the civil court decided that only the remaining balance should be recovered through the current proceedings. Accordingly, it ordered the defendant to pay an additional Dh9,000 to complete the total compensation amount of Dh60,000.
In addition to this payment, the court also ruled that the defendant would be responsible for covering court fees and legal expenses associated with the civil case. This decision was consistent with the general legal principle that the losing party in a dispute may be required to bear procedural costs.
The judgment highlighted the interconnected nature of criminal and civil liability in such cases. While the criminal court focuses on determining guilt and imposing penalties or initial compensation, civil courts address the broader issue of financial redress for harm suffered by victims.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforced the idea that repeated harassment, even when carried out through something as simple as phone calls, can have serious legal consequences. It also confirmed that victims are entitled to seek additional compensation through civil action, even after a criminal conviction has been issued, provided that the harm suffered can be demonstrated and legally recognized.
