The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance ordered a debtor to pay Dh3.175 million to a man with whom he had a business relationship. The debtor had failed to pay the amount by the date specified in a debt acknowledgement. The creditor later discovered that the debtor held two different nationalities, each under a different name. The court established that both names belonged to the same person.
A man filed a lawsuit demanding that another person pay him Dh3.175 million. In his statement of claim, he said the defendant had signed a debt acknowledgement confirming that he had received the amount and pledging to repay it by a specific date. However, he failed to make the payment despite repeated demands.
He added that he resorted to legal action to recover the money and submitted a request to the urgent matters judge to prevent the defendant from travelling and circulate the notice to the country’s ports of entry. During the proceedings, however, he discovered that the debtor held two different nationalities and used a different name for each.
He said the defendant appeared in his documents under the first name as a national of an Arab country, while under the second name he was listed as a national of a European country. The remaining details matched, confirming that both identities belonged to the same person. A travel ban was subsequently issued under both names over the debt.
The plaintiff submitted a copy of the notarised debt acknowledgement as evidence, along with copies of travel documents bearing the two different names. He also submitted a copy of the travel ban order and the notice circulated to the country’s ports of entry.
The case was heard before the Case Management Office using remote communication technology. The plaintiff appeared in person, while the defendant failed to appear despite being legally notified. He also failed to attend subsequent court hearings. The court then reserved the case for judgment.
The court explained in its ruling that, under the law of evidence, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the right being claimed, while the defendant has the right to deny it. A customary document is considered evidence against the person who signed it unless they explicitly deny the handwriting, signature, seal or fingerprint attributed to them.
The court said the case documents established that the defendant had acknowledged in writing that he received Dh3.175 million and pledged to repay it by a specific date. There was no evidence that he had paid the amount or any part of it. He also failed to appear before the court to present a defence or argument challenging the validity of the acknowledgement or the debt.
The court stated that the defendant’s acknowledgement constituted sufficient written evidence to establish the debt. His failure to deny its contents, coupled with the absence of any evidence of payment, established his liability for the amount claimed. The court therefore ordered him to pay it.
The court explained that the difference in the names appearing in the debtor’s documents did not affect the validity of the debt. It was satisfied from the documents submitted that the remaining details were identical and that both names belonged to the same person. This was also supported by the travel ban and the notice circulated to the country’s ports of entry under both names.
Regarding legal interest, the court explained that the amount claimed was specified and due according to the defendant’s acknowledgement. Legal interest of 5 per cent was therefore payable from the due date until full payment.
The court ruled that the defendant, under both names but established as the same person, must pay the plaintiff Dh3.175 million, plus legal interest of 5 per cent from February 9, 2025, until full payment. He was also ordered to pay the fees and expenses.
Main changes: I broke up long sentences, removed repeated phrasing, corrected awkward translated constructions, standardised the legal terminology and improved the flow while preserving the original paragraph sequence and information.