Khaberni - A European person turned to a friend asking for his help to get out of a financial crisis that impacted his business. The latter responded by lending him 1 million and 514 thousand dirhams, and additionally transferring 225 thousand euros to a company account at the request of the debtor.
He expected his friend to acknowledge his help, as a reward for his initiative, and to return the loan on the agreed date, but he encountered procrastination and a failure to commit to repayment, leading him to file a legal case against him.
The civil court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the debtor to pay the claimed amount as well as compensating 100 thousand dirhams for delays and procrastination in repayment.
In detail, a European man filed a legal case demanding that his friend repay an amount of 1 million and 514 thousand dirhams and 225 thousand euros, or their equivalent in Emirati dirhams (956,250 dirhams), plus legal interest from the date of the claim until the repayment date, along with 500 thousand dirhams as compensation for material, moral damages, and lost profits suffered by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff stated in his lawsuit that there was an old friendship linking him to the defendant, and on a previous date, he had asked him for a loan due to a financial distress, so he granted him 1 million and 514 thousand dirhams, followed by 225 thousand euros which were transferred to the account of a company owned by the defendant, specifying a date for repayment.
He added that he requested the return of the amounts through correspondence on "WhatsApp" and "Telegram" apps, and the defendant was making excuses and delaying the payment, noting that the debtor’s behavior caused him significant damage.
The plaintiff attached a copy of the bank transfers to the defendant's personal account with the first amount, and a copy of the transfers to the company account in euros, as well as photos of the correspondence between the two parties.
The defendant appeared in court through a legal representative, who stated that the transferred funds were part of business transactions between the two parties, and that they were to fulfill previous commitments by the plaintiff, after which the case was referred to accounting experts.
The court noted in its judgment that legally, the seriousness of the claim of indebtedness is within the authority of the court of substance, as long as its derivation is plausible with a basis in the documents presented to it.
It added: "Normally, the reason for a bank transfer is to settle a debt due by the transfer issuer (the plaintiff) to the transferee (the defendant) as fulfillment of a commitment arising from a previous contract, and anyone claiming otherwise must prove their claim," explaining that this implies the necessity of evidence indicating that the amount transferred by the creditor in this lawsuit was not a commitment on him or payment for due benefits arising from business transactions. If he proves his right, the defendant must provide evidence of the extinction of the debt and its cause.
After reviewing the documents and evidence by the court-appointed financial expert, the expert's report concluded that the plaintiff did make transfers to the defendant's account totaling 1 million, 514 thousand and 470 dirhams.
The court found through the documents and expert report that the plaintiff had presented receipts confirming the bank transfers, while the defendant provided no evidence that these funds were related to business transactions, or that they had settled the price for goods or any other reason besides the loan, merely stating they were for "other transactions".
The court saw that the expert's report, supported by bank transfer receipts, proved the defendant's liability for the claimed amount and ruled obliging him to repay the amount transferred to him in Emirati dirhams.
Regarding the plaintiff's claim for 225 thousand euros transferred to an account of a company associated with the defendant, the court noted that the lawsuit files lacked any proof of the relationship of that company with the defendant or the plaintiff, or evidence that the amount was transferred for the benefit of the former, and thus rejected this claim for lack of conclusive evidence.
The court also awarded the plaintiff material and moral damages amounting to 100 thousand dirhams, due to the loss of benefits from using and investing the money since the date of the incident, and what he incurred in efforts and resorting to litigation.
