Abu Dhabi Court rejected the case for lack of evidence

A girl demands a young man who has a social relationship to return 3.2 million dirhams

Abu Dhabi Appeal upheld the judgment of the first instance and dismissed the case.


The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims upheld a ruling by the Court of First Instance, which decided to reject a case filed by a girl against a young man, accusing him of seizing three million and 200 thousand dirhams that he borrowed from her, in addition to a number of signed bank checks without specifying their value and issuing them in his favor, based on a relationship social between them.

In detail, a girl filed a lawsuit against a young man, demanding that he return three million and 200 thousand dirhams to her, and in reserve, he delegated a specialized expert to explain her relationship with the defendant, and to indicate the sums of money he borrowed from her, and the extent of her entitlement to claim her return.

The plaintiff indicated that there was a social relationship with the defendant, and he asked her to lend him some money to enter into real estate projects that would generate large profits for them, so she lent him amounts of three million and 200 thousand dirhams, and the plaintiff also asked her to write open checks signed by her, without specifying Its value or history to be used in the field of his investments, as a guarantee for the purchase of some real estate in installments, and given her confidence in him, she handed him the cheques.

She added that when she asked him to return the sums and checks that he received from her, he did not respond, so she filed a criminal complaint against him, so the defendant, during the consideration of the complaint, submitted copies of the checks, after he filled out the check data, and the plaintiff attached a document to her claim with scanned copies of messages via social media (WhatsApp). Ab), receipts for cash deposits in the defendant's account, and bank transfers.

For his part, the defendant submitted a response memorandum in which he pleaded inadmissibility of the case to be filed in a manner other than the way drawn up by the law. He also pleaded inadmissibility of the case because the statement of claim did not include a report of a consultant expert, and he denied all the allegations contained in the statement of claim, indicating that the plaintiff is the debtor to him, as he handed it over. Two million and 800 thousand dirhams to be invested, and checks were written for him, and the court of first instance ruled to reject the case and oblige the plaintiff to pay the case fees and expenses.

The judgment was not accepted by the defendant, so she appealed it, and demanded that the appeal be accepted in form, and in subject matter, by accepting the payment of the appeal for forgery and authorizing the payment of the fee if there was a fee, and obliging the appellee to submit the original checks drawn from her account.

The Court of Appeal stated that establishing evidence of the claimed right is the responsibility of those who uphold it, that the court is not obligated to prepare evidence for it, that deputation of expertise is merely a direct means of proof intended to verify a specific fact that needs to be disclosed, and that the court is not obligated to answer a request for appointment. An expert in the case, when she had found in her papers and other elements sufficient to form her belief and reach the truth about her reality. The court upheld the appealed judgment, and obliged the appellant to pay the expenses.

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