Abu Dhabi court dismisses claim over AED156,000 alleged loan

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by a young man who sought repayment of AED156,000 that he claimed to have lent to a friend in instalments through bank transfers. The court ruled that financial transfers alone do not prove the reason for the transfer of funds or the existence of a debt. According to records, the young man filed a lawsuit against his friend, seeking repayment of the principal amount of AED156,000. He also requested AED94,000 in compensation for the damage and losses he allegedly suffered, along with 5 per cent legal interest from the date of filing until full payment. He further requested immediate enforcement of the judgment without a guarantee and asked that the defendant bear the fees, expenses and printing costs. The plaintiff stated that the defendant had repeatedly asked him for financial assistance because he was going through a difficult period. As a result, he transferred the claimed amount in several instalments to the defendant’s account on the understanding that the money would be repaid as soon as possible. He said that when he later requested repayment, the defendant avoided payment despite not denying the debt. To support his claim, the plaintiff submitted screenshots of WhatsApp conversations with the defendant. He also provided details of the number and value of the bank transfers, a screenshot showing the alleged transfers, and a certificate of bank obligations. Neither the defendant nor his legal representative appeared before the court despite being notified. The court stated that the plaintiff had filed the case seeking repayment of AED156,000 transferred to the defendant. TIt also noted that, under established legal principles, a bank transfer is merely the movement of money from one person to another, and anyone claiming otherwise must provide proof. The court added that the basic principle is that a person is free of debt unless proven otherwise. Since the plaintiff failed to provide evidence proving the existence of the debt or the reason for the transfers, the claim could not be upheld. The court also noted that it was not obligated to require the opposing party to provide evidence for his defence or to draw attention to the requirements of that defence, and that it was entitled to base its judgment on the documents presented before it. The court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay the court fees and expenses.