Abu Dhabi Appeal Court dismissed the case

A young man accuses his friend of seizing 265 thousand dirhams

A court of first instance ordered the young man to return 295,000 dirhams to the plaintiff.

archival

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family and Civil and Administrative Cases annulled a ruling by the Court of First Instance that obligated a young man to return to his friend 265 thousand dirhams and 30 thousand dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages that befell him, and the case was dismissed.

In detail, a young man filed a lawsuit against his friend, who demanded that he pay him an amount of 265 thousand dirhams, and obligated him to pay 50 thousand dirhams in compensation, indicating that he had previously lent the defendant the amount of the claim, but he refused to return it.

The supervising judge decided to refer the case for investigation, as the defendant maintained his denial of the indebtedness, and that the amount transferred to him from the plaintiff came in response to an amount he had previously borrowed from him and he had no witnesses, while the plaintiff cited a witness who decided that the two parties to the dispute were his friends, and that the aforementioned amount was transferred by the plaintiff to his friend to buy a car. And register it for the first interest.

The Court of First Instance ordered the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 295 thousand dirhams and 30 thousand dirhams in compensation for his material and moral damages.

The defendant did not accept the ruling and challenged it, seeking acceptance of his appeal in form and in the matter by canceling the appealed ruling, censuring the ruling by violating the law, error, and violating the established papers, and avoiding the lack of jurisdiction of the court to consider the claim, explaining that the transfer is not useful because of the indebtedness.

In the merits of the ruling, the court stated that what is proven from the case papers is that it lacked evidence that the sums invoking the claim may be obtained by the appellant from the appellant by way of borrowing, according to what the first claimed in the appellate statement of claim and did not prove the sender’s statement regarding lending it to him, nor did it disclose The entire papers support what the witness decided, and the claim lacked its support, and the appellant did not succeed in proving its reason, especially since it was transferred to the appellant, and if he proves the transfer of money, however, he does not foretell or assert the nature and nature of their treatment with regard to him, or the appellant’s debt to those funds.

The court affirmed that this dispute lacked its evidence and support so that it could be resolved in a way that confronts the appellant’s denial of his opponent’s claim before him, which would not have required the court of first instance to stand in the light of the foregoing at the limit of the judiciary by rejecting it and its condition, and abstaining from going into its resolution as a subject, and it was not clear and settled after the right to it. The court decided to accept the appeal in form, to cancel the appealed judgment, to judge again, to reject the appealed case in its current state, and to oblige the appellant to pay the expenses. 

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