Khaberni - An individual of Arab nationality delayed the repayment of a debt worth two million dirhams, borrowed from his friend, claiming that the loan amounted to only one million dirhams and had repaid 100,000 of it, yet the creditor is trying to impose usurious interest on him.
The Civil Court in Dubai ruled that the defendant must pay the full debt, as he had signed a receipt for receiving the amount from the plaintiff.
In detail, a man of Arab nationality filed a lawsuit, demanding another to pay back two million dirhams he had lent him, in addition to 500,000 dirhams compensation for the material and moral damage incurred due to the defendant's procrastination in payment.
He stated in his lawsuit that he lent the amount to the defendant in December 2024, based on a receipt signed by the debtor, with a commitment to repay the amount within three months.
He added that despite his repeated friendly demands for repayment, the defendant refused to pay, causing him harm represented in being deprived of investing the amount, resulting in a loss that deprived him of the profit he had been expecting since the due date, which prompted him to file the lawsuit.
He presented a portfolio of documents, including a copy of the loan contract.
A legal representative for the defendant appeared and submitted a defense memorandum, concluding with a request to dismiss the lawsuit outright, based on the claim that "the agreement is null, in violation of the public order representing the prohibition of usurious interest".
Subsidiarily, the defendant requested the plaintiff be compelled to prove only the principal of the debt, indicating that the remaining amount owed by him does not exceed 900,000 dirhams out of the actual debt amount of one million dirhams.
He submitted a copy of correspondence exchanged between the parties via the "WhatsApp" application, in a last-ditch attempt to disclaim the debt.
After considering the defenses and documents presented in the lawsuit, the Civil Court did not pay attention to the attempts to evade payment or the argument about the invalidity of the loan agreement by the defendant, but rather based its judgment on the principle of "the authority of customary documents" and the burden of proof.
The court stated in its judgment that the defendant did not explicitly deny his signature on the loan document, which makes it a complete proof against him under the law of evidence, stating that "the customary document is considered issued by the person who signed it and is evidence against him, unless he explicitly denies what is attributed to him from handwriting or signature".
The court also established that the defendant did not provide evidence proving his discharge of liability, relying on the legal principle "the creditor must prove the obligation and the debtor must prove release from it".
It saw that the acknowledgment of the debt, signed by the defendant, which he neither denied nor disputed its validity, proves his liability for two million dirhams according to the law of evidence.
Regarding the plaintiff's request for 500,000 dirhams compensation for the defendant's procrastination in payment, it clarified that liability is only established with the presence of its three elements (error, damage, and causal relationship), and that the case file lacks evidence of damages incurred by the plaintiff, making his claim "unsupported statements", and thus, it rejected the compensation request.
Furthermore, the court obligated the defendant to the legal interest at a rate of 5% per annum on the amount of the debt, calculated from the date of the judicial demand until the debt is fully paid, which is in accordance with the established judicial custom in the appellate jurisdiction in the absence of an agreement on interest. Thus, it ruled that the defendant must pay the principal of the debt and the interest, and rejected all other claims.
