The court required the plaintiff to pay fees and charges

Annulment of a ruling obliging a man to pay 555,000 dirhams to another

The court ruled to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal.

Archives

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi upheld an appeal against an appellate ruling, which obliged a man to pay the last 555,000 dirhams, indicating that the order to transfer the bank from his account to another account, he must present what he claims to prove that the transfer was in the face of indictment to the transferee, and ruled The court annulled the judgment, and obligated the respondent to pay fees and expenses.

The plaintiff had filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant, in which he demanded the ruling compelling him to pay him 555,000 dirhams, indicating that he transferred the amount from his account to the defendant’s account with a bank as a loan, and that the defendant was delaying returning this amount to him, despite His request.

After the court had questioned the plaintiff, and heard the statements of his witnesses, it decided to reject the case, so the plaintiff appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal ruled to compel the defendant to pay the plaintiff 555 thousand dirhams, so the defendant appealed the ruling, indicating that the judgment was based on the amount that he spent in favor of the plaintiff to transfer The banker who is fixed in the account statements he submitted, and made it evidence of his indebtedness to him with this amount, even though this debt has no evidence of it in the papers.

The defendant asserted in his appeal that this indebtedness is contradicted by the plaintiff’s admission upon being interrogated before a court of first instance, that the reason for these transfers is the investment of the sums indicated therein in the purchase of agricultural lands, and that the financial deposits in his account are due to the payment of part of the plaintiff’s debt to him, and that the commercial transactions between them and from During the account statements, check and trust receipts submitted by him, he confirms that he has in his possession the plaintiff an amount of 630 thousand and 300 dirhams, and that he is not in debt to him.

The court affirmed that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the truth of what he claims, and that the defendant is not obligated to prove that he is not in debt to the plaintiff, because the principle is clearance of liability unless the plaintiff's opponent proves her preoccupation with the claimed amount, pointing out that the defendant did not deny that the transfers entered his account Banker.

It indicated the defendant's reluctance to prove the validity of his claims regarding the existence of previous commercial transactions between the two parties, and an accounting had been made between them. The plaintiff’s debts amounted to 630 thousand and 300 dirhams, as alleged, and it has not been proven that the transfers made by the plaintiff are merely a repayment of the debt he claims.

She pointed out that the fixed bank transfer in the account statement does not merely indicate the existence of a debt nor prove it, and that the plaintiff has the burden of proving what he claims, and that the two witnesses did not attend the fact of the investment agreement and determine its conditions and obligations of the parties, and no evidence was presented to prove this debt.

The court ruled to overturn the judgment, and obligated the respondent (the plaintiff) to pay fees and expenses, and 1000 dirhams in exchange for attorneys' fees for the appellant, and ordered the return of the insurance to him, and it ruled again to reject the plaintiff’s appeal of the judgment, and obligated him to pay fees and expenses and 300 dirhams for attorney fees.

• The court affirmed that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the truth of what he claims, and the defendant is not obligated to prove that he is not in debt.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news