Man loses bid to recover AED6.67m watch collection from ex-wife

The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance rejected a lawsuit filed by a man seeking the return of a collection of luxury watches that he claimed belonged to him and were worth about AED6.674 million. He said he had left them in the marital home and asked his ex-wife to return them or pay their market value. However, she refused to do so.

Despite submitting purchase invoices, photographs of the watches, correspondence between the two parties, and a police report, the court found that these documents were insufficient to prove that all the watches in question were actually present in the marital residence when he left. It also found no proof that they had passed into the possession of the defendant and remained under her control.

The case arose after the plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding that the defendant return all the luxury watches and their original accessories, or pay their market value if they could not be returned in kind. He also sought AED51,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, claiming that the watches had been withheld from him and that he had been deprived of benefiting from them.

The plaintiff said he had purchased the watches using official invoices issued in his name. He said they were kept in the former marital residence before coming under the defendant’s effective control after he was prevented from entering the home. He added that he had demanded the return of his property through family guidance and reform proceedings, but settlement attempts failed. He then sent her a legal notice demanding the return of the watches. After that, he filed a police report before resorting to civil litigation.

In contrast, the defendant argued that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute, saying that jurisdiction rested with the personal status court. She also sought dismissal of the case on the grounds that there was no proof she possessed or had taken possession of the watches. She further requested that the compensation claim be rejected because no fault, damage, or causal relationship had been established.

The Civil Court rejected the defendant’s plea of lack of jurisdiction. It explained that jurisdiction is determined by the nature and purpose of the claims, not by the status of the litigants or the nature of their previous relationship. The court said the lawsuit concerned a claim for the return of movable property that the plaintiff alleged he privately owned, or payment of its value if return was impossible. It therefore considered the matter a civil dispute unrelated to personal status issues arising from marriage, divorce, or their consequences.

The court then turned to the substance of the case. It said that while the invoices may indicate that the plaintiff purchased some of the listed items, they did not prove that all the movable property in question was inside the marital residence when he left. Nor did they prove that the items were delivered to the defendant or that she continued to possess them.

The court also noted that the photographs submitted by the plaintiff did not reveal the identity of all the items, their serial numbers, or whether they matched the items listed on the invoices. Furthermore, they did not establish when the watches came into the defendant’s possession or whether they remained with her. The court said the list submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient evidence against the defendant.

It added that the court is not required to instruct litigants on how to prove their claims. Rather, each party is responsible for presenting evidence in support of its case. The court’s role is limited to evaluating the evidence and documents submitted and determining whether they are sufficient to support a judgment.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to prove the facts giving rise to his right to demand the return of the watches or payment of their value. It found that he had not proved that the movable property was actually in the defendant’s possession or that she continued to possess it. Accordingly, it dismissed the case in the presence of both parties.