Abu Dhabi Court rejected the case

A dispute over a beauty salon leads 3 women to court

The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance decided to reject a lawsuit filed by a woman against a girl and her mother, requesting that the defendants return the amount of 37,000 dirhams, which she paid to them in exchange for buying a beauty salon. prove indebtedness.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against a girl and her mother, demanding that they pay her 37,000 dirhams, with fees and expenses, noting that she transferred the amount to the first defendant, who is the daughter of the second defendant, (the owner of a salon), in order to buy The salon, and the parties agreed to waive and sell the shop, but she was surprised to sell the salon to another person.

The plaintiff submitted to the court a photocopy of a salon business license belonging to the second defendant, and a photocopy of bank transfers to the account of the first defendant, in the amount of 30,000 dirhams.

In the ruling’s rationale, the court confirmed that what is stipulated by the Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions is that the plaintiff must prove his right and the defendant has the right to deny it, and since no one is justified to take another person’s money without a legitimate reason, if he takes it, he must return it, noting that it is established from the papers that The plaintiff submitted a statement of her claim attached with a photocopy of the transfers to the account of the first defendant, from which the court did not find anything except transferring funds to parties without explaining the reason.

The court indicated that the plaintiff based her claim on the purchase of a place belonging to the second defendant, and her statements were sent in this regard, and the plaintiff’s financial transfer or deposit order, assuming its validity, was not affected by this, but this did not prove to the court the reason for this. The deposit, and that the burden of proof still rests on the plaintiff, and his condition is not considered evidence of the defendants’ preoccupation, pointing out that the document submitted to the court indicates the transfer of funds from the plaintiff to another person, which does not, by itself, indicate the reason claimed by the plaintiff, or prove the reason for the claim The plaintiff did not provide evidence of the defendants' indebtedness to this debt, and that the existing transfer order only proves the fact of the transfer of money with the agreement of the two parties, and the court ruled to reject the lawsuit in its case, and the plaintiff obligated the expenses.

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