Lawsuit: Pending Rubilubi55 v. The Crown, Case 17 (Mag. Ct. 2025)

[CoolCat]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
CIVIL ACTION

Rubilubi55
Plaintiff

v.

The Crown / Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Defendant

Introduction
(All times are given in UTC)

On the 3rd of September 2025, at around 5 PM, Rubilubi55 has been accepted (P-001) and hired (P-002) as an Ambassador by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. One day later, on the 4th of September 2025, at around 10 PM, Rubilubi55 has been fired as Ambassador (P-003). Shortly after, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, GraprielJuice, messaged Rubilubi55 notifying him about his dismissal (P-004).
By accepting Rubilubi55's application for the position as Ambassador, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as the government as a whole agreed to an employment contract as all of the requirements outlined in Section 4 of the Code of Contract were met. No misbehaviour of Rubilubi55 has happened between him being hired and him being fired, nor did any Breach of Contract on Rubilubi55's side happen, that could possibly reason a dismissal. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs therefore unreasonably fired Rubilubi55, causing unneeded damages, including instability of Rubilubi55's career as well as mental distress. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be held accountable for disrespecting legal contracts in such a way.

I. Parties
Rubilubi55 - Plaintiff
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (represented by the Crown) - Defendant

II. Facts
1. An employment contract according to the Code of Contract between the plaintiff (Rubilubi55) and the defendant (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) has been established and agreed on by both parties.
2. The plaintiff (Rubilubi55) has been fired from their position as Ambassador (P-003) one day after getting hired (P-002).
3. No misbehaviour of the plaintiff (Rubilubi55) occurred during their time as an employee in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that could possibly reason a dismissal.
4. The "reason" for the plaintiffs' (Rubilubi55) dismissal as provided to him by GraprielJuice, Minister of Foreign Affairs (P-004), should be nullified, as, even if it would be a reasonable base for dismissal, the facts presented as reason were already public and to the knowledge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before both parties agreed to the employment contract.
5. The dismissal of Rubilubi55 was therefore unreasonable and a Breach of Contract according to the Code of Contract, as no misbehaviour nor Breach of Contract on Rubilubi55's side had happened before.

III. Claims for Relief
1. As stated in Section 4 of the Code of Contract, for a contract to be legally enforceable, it must include a consensus, a capacity and a cause. Both parties have agreed, therefore fulfilling the requirement of a consensus (Rubilubi55 through submitting his application and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through accepting his application and hiring him as an Ambassador). Both parties have also had the legal capacity required for a contract, as well as a cause has been present. The plaintiff offered to work for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs offered employment and a job in the Ministry.
2. Due to the Ministry firing the plaintiff unreasonably, as all facts stated as reasons by the Minister of Foreign Affairs have already been to their knowledge before they agreed to the contract and no misrepresentation has happened, the defendant (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) conducted a Breach of Contract and should be held accountable for that.
3. According to Section 7 of the Code of Contract, the damaged party, after a Breach of Contract, may request compensatory damages, "the restoration of the aggrieved party, as far as possible, to the position they would have occupied had the contract been performed." As the Breach of Contract and the plaintiffs' unfair dismissal damaged him by causing emotional distress and damage to the stability of the plaintiff's career, the plaintiff should be awarded the below stated compensatory damage. (Prayers for Relief, 2.)
4. According to Section 7 of the Code of Contract, the damaged party, after a Breach of Contract, may request the other party to still fulfill the terms given in the contract (Specific Performance), like reinstating the other party into their former position after an unfair dismissal has happened. (Prayers for Relief, 1.)
5. Because of the reasons stated above the plaintiff asks the court to grant the now following Prayers for Relief.

IV. Prayers for Relief
1. Reinstatement of the plaintiff into his former position as Ambassador, according to the employment contract. (Specific Performance)
2. SC£2,000 in Compensatory Damages to compensate the emotional distress and damages to the stability of the plaintiff's career caused by the Breach of Contract. (Compensatory Damages)

V. Evidence

Spoiler: P-001

The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Talion77, accepting the plaintiff's application.

Spoiler: P-002

The Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Talion77, hiring the plaintiff, after accepting his application as Ambassador.

Spoiler: P-003

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, GraprielJuice, firing the plaintiff as Ambassador.

Spoiler: P-004

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, GraprielJuice, notifying the plaintiff about his dismissal as Ambassador.

Respectfully submitted to the Magistrate Court of Alexandria this 21st day of September 2025 by Rubilubi55.

Signed,
Rubi Semsrott-Sloth (Rubilubi55).

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
SUMMONS

The Crown's rightfully appointed Counsel is commanded to appear before the Magistrates Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria in

Case 17 (Mag Ct., 2025)

rubilubi55
Plaintiff
v.

The Crown
Defendant

within seventy-two (72) hours. Failure to do so may result in a default judgment.​

 

[Ibney0]

Your honour,

Joseph Ibney for the Crown.

 

[Gribble19]

The Defendant shall have 72 hours from now to submit their Answer.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

I. Facts
1. Denied.
2. Admitted
3. Neither Affirm nor Deny at this time.
4. Denied. This is an argument, not a fact.
5. Denied. This is an argument, not a fact.

II. Claims for Relief
1. Admitted as to for a contract to be legally enforceable, it must include a consensus, a capacity and a cause, and that both parties had the legal capacity to contract. Denied on all other grounds.
2. Denied.
3. Denied. Plaintiff, should there have been a contract, suffered no damages.
4. Admitted.
5. Neither Admitted or Denied.

III. Defenses
1. No contract was formed between the Crown and the Plaintiff. A contract requires a consensus as to its terms. No terms were outlined, and no agreement was reached as to those terms.
2. If a contract was formed, nothing in the contract specified any term of employment, or that plaintiff could not be fired at any time.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Ministry of Justice

 

[Gribble19]

We will now enter Discovery for a period of 72 hours. Discovery may be extended or ended early through the methods prescribed by the court rules and procedures.

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
DISCOVERY WITNESS LIST DISCLOSURE

Your honour,

Should this case continue to trial, the defense submits the following potential witness list:
- GrapielJuice

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Ministry of Justice

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your honour,

The Crown, through its undersigned counsel, respectfully motions for dismissal of this case based on the following points and authorities:

1. Lack of Claim - No Consensus
Plaintiff submits this complaint asserting they 1) were hired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("MOFA"), 2) a contract was formed from this hiring, and 3) were fired by the MOFA contrary to this contract. Plaintiff submits no evidence of a consensus between themselves and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

When determining whether to grand an entreaty to dismiss for lack of claim, the court views the facts and arguments of the defendant in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether under that light the plaintiff would win. See Moyfr v. Crown, Case 4, ECF No. 45 (Ch. 2025) (where the Chancery Court found that because not all of the claims for relief were moot, the plaintiff could be granted relief, and thus denied the entreaty to dismiss for lack of claim). Under the Code of Contract, "consensus" means "the sufficiently unambiguous communication by the parties of their consent to be bound by the agreement." Code of Contract Act, Sec. 4 (1)(a). The unambiguous communications is judged under the light of the circumstances. Id.

The plaintiff asserts that because he was hired by the MOFA, there thus must have been a consensus between himself and the Crown. However, the mere statement of an intent to hire does not establish an agreement between the Crown and the defendant, let alone a employer-employee relationship. No agreement regarding duties based on the evidence submitted was reached. No evidence submitted, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows any actual discussion between the Crown and the defendant regarding any agreement for employment.

Because no such evidence exists, the defendant can not legally prove a consensus took place, and this could should dismiss this claim.

2. Lack of Claim - No Breach of Contract
Even assuming that a consensus was reached, plaintiff provides no evidence that an agreement existed not to fire him at any time. The Crown contends that should a contractual relationship exists, it was an at will employer-employee relationship, and the plaintiff could have been fired at any time. If no agreement exists regarding preventing the plaintiff from being fired, no breach of the contract exists. To determine that the plaintiff could not be fired without an agreement would 1) not give the Crown reasonable notice of the terms of the contract they signed, and 2) would prevent the Crown from taking action against employees who violate their rules and procedures. No reason exists why the Crown could not fire the plaintiff, and as a result, there can be no breach of contract.

3. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Crown respectfully requests this Court dismiss these claims without prejudice, and allow the plaintiff to refile this lawsuit in a way that conforms with its Court rules.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Minister of Justice

 

[Ibney0]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Your honour,

The Crown respectfully requests that while awaiting the Courts determination on the Crown's Entreaty to dismiss, the Court halt the timer on the discovery period, and resume it once a determination has taken place.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Minister of Justice

 

[CoolCat]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your honour,

The Crown, through its undersigned counsel, respectfully motions for dismissal of this case based on the following points and authorities:

1. Lack of Claim - No Consensus
Plaintiff submits this complaint asserting they 1) were hired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("MOFA"), 2) a contract was formed from this hiring, and 3) were fired by the MOFA contrary to this contract. Plaintiff submits no evidence of a consensus between themselves and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

When determining whether to grand an entreaty to dismiss for lack of claim, the court views the facts and arguments of the defendant in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether under that light the plaintiff would win. See Moyfr v. Crown, Case 4, ECF No. 45 (Ch. 2025) (where the Chancery Court found that because not all of the claims for relief were moot, the plaintiff could be granted relief, and thus denied the entreaty to dismiss for lack of claim). Under the Code of Contract, "consensus" means "the sufficiently unambiguous communication by the parties of their consent to be bound by the agreement." Code of Contract Act, Sec. 4 (1)(a). The unambiguous communications is judged under the light of the circumstances. Id.

The plaintiff asserts that because he was hired by the MOFA, there thus must have been a consensus between himself and the Crown. However, the mere statement of an intent to hire does not establish an agreement between the Crown and the defendant, let alone a employer-employee relationship. No agreement regarding duties based on the evidence submitted was reached. No evidence submitted, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows any actual discussion between the Crown and the defendant regarding any agreement for employment.

Because no such evidence exists, the defendant can not legally prove a consensus took place, and this could should dismiss this claim.

2. Lack of Claim - No Breach of Contract
Even assuming that a consensus was reached, plaintiff provides no evidence that an agreement existed not to fire him at any time. The Crown contends that should a contractual relationship exists, it was an at will employer-employee relationship, and the plaintiff could have been fired at any time. If no agreement exists regarding preventing the plaintiff from being fired, no breach of the contract exists. To determine that the plaintiff could not be fired without an agreement would 1) not give the Crown reasonable notice of the terms of the contract they signed, and 2) would prevent the Crown from taking action against employees who violate their rules and procedures. No reason exists why the Crown could not fire the plaintiff, and as a result, there can be no breach of contract.

3. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Crown respectfully requests this Court dismiss these claims without prejudice, and allow the plaintiff to refile this lawsuit in a way that conforms with its Court rules.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Minister of Justice

Your honour, may I respond to this Entreaty to Dismiss?

We would like to rescind this request.

 

[CoolCat]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
Discovery - Evidence

The plaintiff would like to submit following evidence.

Spoiler: P-005

Spoiler: P-006

 

[CoolCat]

IN THE MAGISTRATE COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ENTREATY TO DISMISS

Your honour,

The Crown, through its undersigned counsel, respectfully motions for dismissal of this case based on the following points and authorities:

1. Lack of Claim - No Consensus
Plaintiff submits this complaint asserting they 1) were hired by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("MOFA"), 2) a contract was formed from this hiring, and 3) were fired by the MOFA contrary to this contract. Plaintiff submits no evidence of a consensus between themselves and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

When determining whether to grand an entreaty to dismiss for lack of claim, the court views the facts and arguments of the defendant in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether under that light the plaintiff would win. See Moyfr v. Crown, Case 4, ECF No. 45 (Ch. 2025) (where the Chancery Court found that because not all of the claims for relief were moot, the plaintiff could be granted relief, and thus denied the entreaty to dismiss for lack of claim). Under the Code of Contract, "consensus" means "the sufficiently unambiguous communication by the parties of their consent to be bound by the agreement." Code of Contract Act, Sec. 4 (1)(a). The unambiguous communications is judged under the light of the circumstances. Id.

The plaintiff asserts that because he was hired by the MOFA, there thus must have been a consensus between himself and the Crown. However, the mere statement of an intent to hire does not establish an agreement between the Crown and the defendant, let alone a employer-employee relationship. No agreement regarding duties based on the evidence submitted was reached. No evidence submitted, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, shows any actual discussion between the Crown and the defendant regarding any agreement for employment.

Because no such evidence exists, the defendant can not legally prove a consensus took place, and this could should dismiss this claim.

2. Lack of Claim - No Breach of Contract
Even assuming that a consensus was reached, plaintiff provides no evidence that an agreement existed not to fire him at any time. The Crown contends that should a contractual relationship exists, it was an at will employer-employee relationship, and the plaintiff could have been fired at any time. If no agreement exists regarding preventing the plaintiff from being fired, no breach of the contract exists. To determine that the plaintiff could not be fired without an agreement would 1) not give the Crown reasonable notice of the terms of the contract they signed, and 2) would prevent the Crown from taking action against employees who violate their rules and procedures. No reason exists why the Crown could not fire the plaintiff, and as a result, there can be no breach of contract.

3. Conclusion
For these reasons, the Crown respectfully requests this Court dismiss these claims without prejudice, and allow the plaintiff to refile this lawsuit in a way that conforms with its Court rules.

Respectfully submitted,

Joseph Ibney0
Solicitor General
Minister of Justice

The plaintiff agrees with Section 3 - The Conclusion of this Entreaty and wishes the court to dismiss this case without prejudice to allow the plaintiff to refile this lawsuit.