The Jeddah Court in Saudi Arabia settled a dispute between a businessman and an investor over a unique mobile number, according to Okaz newspaper.
The Court of Appeal approved the court's decision to keep the distinctive number in the investor's possession.
The details of this case are due to the fact that a businessman had filed a lawsuit before the General Court in which he stated that 9 years ago, he had lent a distinctive mobile number to an investor who had commercial business connections between them, and that the number in question is still in the possession of the defendant, and he is demanding that he be obliged to return it to him because he had handed it over to him. By loan.
While the investor responded in a response note to the lawsuit that what was stated in the lawsuit is correct, and that the number in question is in his possession, and there is no such thing in the telecommunications companies’ system as “lending a mobile number,” pointing out that ownership of the number was legally transferred to his name, and that he uses it and pays. His bills have been paid monthly for years.
The investor also presented an agreement and settlement by mutual consent between the two parties, discharging each party’s liability towards the other, during their separation 9 years ago. He described the lawsuit as malicious due to previous disputes, and requested that the lawsuit be dismissed because it lacked legal and regulatory data.
For its part, the court asked the plaintiff businessman about the evidence for his claim, as it was devoid of evidence. He asked for a deadline, and later said that he adhered to the request to recover the mobile number, as it was registered in his name and he was the one who obtained it from a telecommunications company after entering an official bidding to sell the numbers. And he paid an amount of 250 thousand riyals, in exchange for obtaining the number and registering it in his name, and thus his ownership of the number, and that the agreement and settlement between him and the investor did not stipulate that the mobile number should remain in his possession, and that it was loaned to him.
The court also asked both parties to the dispute about ownership of the number at the present time, and whether it was transferred to the investor in a legal manner or is it still registered in the name of the plaintiff?
The investor replied that the number was transferred to his name with an official waiver from the plaintiff at the telecommunications company headquarters, while the businessman insisted on his request to restore the number because it was a special number that he had purchased in a charitable auction and that he had transferred it to him, and that its ownership belonged to him from the beginning, and he demanded that the telecommunications company be addressed to verify the authenticity of this.
The investor provided evidence that ownership of the number had been transferred to him with the plaintiff’s waiver, and that the number had become his property, and the plaintiff had no right to retract his waiver in the hope of reselling the number to others for hundreds of thousands of riyals. He based this on the fact that Article 24 of the Evidence System stipulated that (the fixed With proof, like what is proven by sight.)
The judicial department later reviewed all documents and memoranda filed by both parties to the dispute.
It reviewed evidence that the plaintiff had waived the number in question, and the court reached a ruling to dismiss the lawsuit and keep the distinctive number in the investor’s possession. The Court of Appeal later upheld the ruling and it became final.