Al Ain court dismisses Dh87,000 dispute between former colleagues

Al Ain: The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man seeking the return of Dh87,000 from a former colleague, after finding that he failed to prove the money had been provided as a loan. The case stemmed from a financial arrangement between the two former colleagues, with the plaintiff claiming he had lent the woman Dh87,000 over a four-month period to help her care for her children. He argued that she later refused to return the money despite repeated requests. The man asked the court to order the defendant to repay Dh87,000, pay legal interest at 5% from the date the lawsuit was filed until full payment, provide Dh2,000 in compensation, and cover court fees, expenses and legal costs. As a precautionary measure, he also requested that the court administer a decisive oath to the defendant. The defendant, however, denied that the money was a loan, maintaining that the amounts had been transferred voluntarily by the plaintiff as financial assistance and a gift. She requested the dismissal of the case and stated that she had no objection to taking the decisive oath. In its ruling, the court explained that a bank transfer merely proves that money was transferred between two parties and does not, by itself, establish the legal nature of the transaction. Since the plaintiff claimed the transfers constituted a loan, the burden of proof rested with him. The court noted that the defendant consistently denied that the money was a loan and maintained that it had been given to her voluntarily. The court reviewed all WhatsApp conversations submitted by both parties and found that one conversation relied upon by the plaintiff had been presented without a portion of the preceding exchange. According to the judgment, the plaintiff submitted a message in which the defendant said she did not have the full amount and would transfer Dh1,000 or Dh2,000 to him each month. However, the defendant provided the complete conversation, which included earlier messages stating that the money had been transferred to her as assistance and that she was surprised by the plaintiff's demand for repayment. The court said admissions must be considered in their entirety and within their full context, and that it is not permissible to extract a statement in a manner that changes its meaning or separates it from related comments. It found that the defendant's statement about making monthly transfers did not amount to an explicit admission that the Dh87,000 constituted a loan or an enforceable debt, particularly in light of her earlier comments that the money had been given voluntarily as assistance. During the proceedings, the court administered the decisive oath to the defendant. She swore that the amounts transferred to her were not loans but gifts and financial assistance. Based on the evidence before it, the court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay the court fees and expenses.