Dubai Court rejects man’s request to reclaim apartment from ex-wife

Dubai Court of First Instance rejected a lawsuit filed by a man in which he demanded the annulment of a gift agreement for a residential apartment that he had given to his ex-wife and obligated him to pay the incurred charges, expenses and lawyer’s fees.

The gift was valid and could not be revoked due to the existence of a legal impediment, the court added.

Earlier, a man filed a lawsuit in which he requested a gift agreement issued in favour of his ex-wife for an apartment located in Dubai to be annulled and that the apartment be re-registered in his name with the Land Department.

He pleaded that the marital relationship that brought him together with her wife ended later in divorce and that he gave her the apartment based on continued relationship.

The plaintiff stated that after the gift had been registered in her name, his ex-wife fabricated disputes between them, which led her to file a divorce lawsuit, pleading that she laid hold of the apartment unjustly and that he would not have gifted her the property if he had known that the marital relationship had ended.

This prompted him to demand the annulment of the gift and the return of the property, he said.

During the proceedings, the defendant argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, requesting that the dispute be referred to the Personal Status Court.

The court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the dispute revolved around a financial transaction (real estate donation) that fell within the jurisdiction of the civil courts with general authority and was not among the matters that were exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Personal Status Courts.

As far as the subject of the lawsuit was concerned, the court stated that a gift was a legal act that took place without consideration and was concluded by offer and acceptance and completed by handover.

It was established from the documents that the apartment was registered in the defendant’s name, which indicated completed gift and legal transfer of its ownership to her, the court added.

The law permitted the revocation of a gift in some cases but set impediments to this including if the gift was made by one spouse to the other during the marital relationship, as was the case at hand, no revocation could be made, it said.

The court pointed out that the justifications presented by the plaintiff regarding the end of the marital relationship or the claim of exploitation did not affect the validity of the gift and left no place for revocation.

The court dismissed the lawsuit accordingly and obligated the plaintiff to pay the incurred charges, expenses, and lawyer’s fees.