The Abu Dhabi appeal obliged him to return its value

A barber seizes a car that "Khaleejia" had registered in his name

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld a first-degree ruling obligating a (Asian) barber to pay a (Gulf) woman 70,350 dirhams for the value of a car she bought and registered in the barber's name due to traffic offenses that prevented her from registering the vehicle in her name, so he seized it and refused to return it.

The details of the case refer to a woman filing a lawsuit against a barber, demanding that he be obligated to pay 70 thousand and 350 dirhams and the late interest of 12%, and in return for the attorney's fees, indicating that she bought a car with the amount of the judicial claim, and given that she has some obstacles that prevent her from registering the car in her name, which she registered in the name of When the barber asked him to transfer the ownership of the car or refund its value, he refused, and provided a scanned image of a tax bill showing the purchase of the vehicle.

The court questioned the woman and confirmed the registration of the vehicle in the name of a worker with her sister's husband in a barber shop because of the violations that she was unable to register the vehicle in her name or in the name of her husband, pointing out that the vehicle remained in her possession until the date it was withdrawn by the police, and given that the property was in the name of the barber, the police delivered the vehicle mechanism.

For his part, Al-Hallaq denied the plaintiff’s statements and decided that he bought two vehicles from them, the first at a value of 85,000 dirhams, and the second at a value of 25,000 dirhams, indicating that there was no sale contract because the sale was verbal between them and he paid the value of the vehicle in cash without having witnesses to the incident of the sale. A degree of obligating the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of 70 thousand and 350 dirhams, and the legal interest at 4% from the date of the claim until full payment, not exceeding the principal debt, fees and expenses.

The defendant appealed the appeal against the judgment, denouncing the violation of the law and prejudice to his rights when the burden of proof was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant by his determination of the records of his judiciary, which stipulated that the court is not assured of the defendant's statements and asked him to prove the fact of the sale.

The Court of Appeal stated in the merits of the ruling, that the appellant, throughout the entire trial stages, admitted that he had no evidence of his private ownership of the vehicle, had no witnesses, no sale contract, even customary, and there was no acknowledgment by the saleswoman, and therefore what he claims is not consistent with reality and the law, and the means to challenge him are unlawful. Basis, and the appealed ruling was issued in accordance with the correct law, and the court decided to accept the appeal in form, and in the matter to reject it, confirm the appealed judgment, and oblige the appellant to pay the fees and expenses.

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