He loses 200 thousand dirhams because of a fake project

The Abu Dhabi Family Court and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected a man’s lawsuit in which he demanded that another person pay him an amount of 200,000 dirhams, which he had transferred to the defendant’s account to participate in a project with a large profit return, after the latter took the complementary oath and denied receiving the money.

In the details, a man filed a lawsuit against another, at the end of which he demanded his obligation to pay him an amount of 200,000 dirhams and the legal interest at 12% of the due date, in addition to obligating him to pay fees and expenses and in exchange for attorneys’ fees and to include the judgment with expedited enforcement, indicating that he transferred an amount of 200,000 dirhams. Payments to the defendant’s account after the latter tempted him with a commercial project that would generate large profits for him.

The plaintiff explained that the defendant, after receiving the amount of 200,000 dirhams, returned the sum of 20,000 dirhams as profits from the project, and promised him to return the original amount. Adjudication, as well as dismissal of the case and submitted a portfolio of documents.

During the consideration of the case, the court directed the decisive oath to the defendant, where he swore that the plaintiff did not send him any money transfers and did not receive from the plaintiff an amount of 200,000 dirhams remaining owed to the plaintiff out of the advance of 220,000 dirhams.

The court clarified in the rationale for its ruling that “the judgments that have the validity of the res judicata are evidence in the litigation it has resolved, and it is not permissible to accept evidence that contradicts this presumption. And the court decides on this authority on its own,” noting that it is clear from the lawsuit papers that the plaintiff had filed a previous lawsuit against the defendant and it was rejected in its case due to a lack of the obligations of the judgment, and that the judgment rejecting the lawsuit in its case does not have the authority of the res judicata, and therefore this The defendant's plea that the case may not be considered due to the previous adjudication was based on no basis from fact or law.

The court indicated that, according to the Civil Transactions Law, “the creditor must prove his right and the debtor has to deny it,” pointing out that the plaintiff had requested that the decisive oath be directed to the defendant, the court had responded to his request and the decisive oath was directed to the defendant, which the latter took, and by the defendant’s swearing of these The decisive oath was proven to the court that he was not liable for the amounts claimed, and the court ruled to dismiss the case and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

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