Abu Dhabi court orders man to return Dhs400,000 debt he took from a woman

Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court obligated a man to return Dhs400,000 to a woman, who had entrusted him with the sum in two promissory notes, but he failed to return the money and continued to stall.

The court adjudicated the case by directing her to take a decisive oath, which she took in its prescribed form.

Earlier, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in which she requested that he be obligated to pay her Dhs400,000 in exchange for the value of the trust receipts detailed above plus a 5 per cent legal interest from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment.

The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant had received from her Dhs200,000 as evidenced by a trust receipt and another Dhs200,000 as evidenced by another trust receipt, adding that as he had not returned the amount to her and was procrastinating to do so, she was prompted to file the present lawsuit with the above requests.

The plaintiff appeared in person before the court where she expressed her willingness to take the decisive oath and subsequently took the oath accordingly.

As far as the plaintiff’s request to obligate the defendant to pay her Dhs400,000 for the value of the trust receipts, the court explained that article 1 of the law of evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions stipulates that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving their claim, while the defendant has the responsibility to disprove it.

The facts presented as evidence must be relevant, impactful, and admissible.

The court stated that the plaintiff filed her present lawsuit on the basis that the defendant received the money in question from her as a trust but refused to return it.

As such, the plaintiff attached to her docket a copy of the trust receipt and the court completed this evidence by directing her to take the decisive oath, it added.

On the other hand, the defendant neither presented valid evidence that he had returned the amount nor challenged the validity of his signature on the trust receipt.

Based on the above, the court concluded that the plaintiff had delivered the amount in question to the defendant but the latter did not return the same to her.