Khaberni - The Primary Civil Court in Dubai ruled to dismiss a lawsuit filed by an Arab man, who sought to compel his wife, her brother, and his brother's wife to return six million and 650 thousand dirhams, which he said he entrusted to her, along with a request for 100,000 dirhams in monetary and moral compensation. He indicated that she had bargained with him to return the amount in exchange for a divorce, so he complied, but she did not adhere to the agreement.
The origins of the lawsuit trace back to a story that began with a decision under dire circumstances in his country, according to the plaintiff, who decided to relocate his entire life to Dubai, liquidated his businesses there, and started planning for his family's transition and settlement in the UAE.
According to his story, he first sent his wife to the UAE, provided her with a residence and a valid stay, and planned to join her later to complete the relocation and start a new business venture.
In doing so, he began transferring his funds to her and delivering large sums of money amounting to 5.2 million dirhams and 50,000 dollars, in addition to expenses for equipping the residence. He later handed her an additional amount of 1.266 million dirhams inside the country, bringing the total amount - according to him - to 6.65 million dirhams, which were kept in the safes of one of her relatives' homes.
However, the narrative changed, as stated in the lawsuit, after family disputes arose between the parties, resulting in the plaintiff leaving the residence and demanding the return of his money, but his request was denied.
The plaintiff stated that his wife demanded a divorce in exchange for returning the funds, noting that he agreed to this; however, according to him, she did not keep her promise and did not return the money.
In response, the defendants clung to their rejection of the lawsuit, denied the documents presented, and refuted receiving any sums. They offered a divorce and settlement agreement, and requested the submission of the original documents for potential challenge when necessary.
During the trial, the plaintiff reiterated his requests which included referring the lawsuit for investigation, hearing witnesses, interrogating the opposition, appointing an expert, and directing the supplemental oath to him to prove the fact of handing over the money. However, the court emphasized in its ruling that these requests are not absolute rights for the parties and are subject to its discretion, which it may ignore whenever it finds sufficient evidence in the case files to form its opinion, as concluded in this case, thus rejecting all procedural requests.
Regarding the subject of the lawsuit, the court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and that an acknowledgment is only valid if it is explicit and decisive. The court of facts also has full authority in evaluating the evidence and documents presented.
Upon examining the documents, it was evident that the plaintiff provided no proof that the sums were entrusted, relying on a passport photo with a signature that, according to the court, included no phrases indicating receipt of the amount or acknowledgment thereof, nor did it reflect the nature of the legal relationship between the parties.
The papers also lacked any receipts or documents proving the handover of the funds or any obligation to return them, while the defendants insisted on denying the incident.
The court pointed out contradictions in the plaintiff's story, noting that the date attributed to the signature for receiving one of the amounts came after the divorce and settlement agreement, which contradicts his statement that returning the funds was part of that settlement.
The court concluded that the lawsuit was devoid of any credible evidence proving that the defendants had received the sums or were indebted with them, thereby necessitating its rejection.
