A “missing declaration” prevents an Asian from proving his right to 1.1 million dirhams

The Dubai Civil Court rejected a lawsuit filed by an Asian person in which he claimed his right to one million and 150 thousand dirhams that he gave to another in the form of checks, due to his inability to submit an original declaration attributed to the defendant, while his opponent demanded that he submit the original declaration to prove the right, denying that he had obtained any loan from the plaintiff.

In detail, an Asian person filed a civil lawsuit against another of the same nationality, requesting that he be obliged to pay him an amount of one million and 150 thousand dirhams, in addition to 5% legal interest from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment.

The plaintiff based his claim on the fact that the defendant borrowed the amount from him and received it in the form of five checks with different dates, adding that he had already obtained the money from the plaintiff’s account.

He reported that the defendant signed a declaration obligating himself to return the amount he received as a refundable loan to buy an apartment in their country, pledging to return it in full within a specific period.

He said that the defendant did not abide by what he agreed to in his pledge, and refused to pay amicably, which forced him to resort to the judiciary.

I attach copies of the checks and a copy of the declaration and its translation into Arabic.

For his part, the defendant denied what his opponent attributed to him.

He said that the checks mentioned were for amounts due to him that were paid by the plaintiff, stressing that he did not borrow anything from him, and asked him to submit the original declaration to challenge it for forgery, denying the validity of what was stated in the declaration submitted to the court.

In turn, the plaintiff followed the defendant’s memorandum that the original statement was missing, and requested to hear witnesses, so the court decided to reserve the case for judgment.

The court stated in the merits of its ruling that, according to the Law of Evidence in Civil Transactions, the plaintiff must prove the right he claims, and the defendant has the right to deny it, and the facts to be proven must be related to the lawsuit and resulting from it, and may be accepted.

She explained that what is clear to her, according to what is proven in the papers, is that the plaintiff based his claim on the basis of the existence of a loan contract between him and the defendant, and the latter’s obligation to return the amount in question as a loan, but the defendant disputed with him about the nature of the money he received, and decided that it was in fulfillment of his rights.

The court indicated that the lawsuit lacked evidence of the loan, as the plaintiff submitted a copy of a statement attributed to the defendant that the latter denied, and did not submit the original, so his copy became without authority or weight in proof, which made the lawsuit become merely transmitted statements that are not supported by evidence, and that The court does not find that the plaintiff’s request to hear witnesses to the loan is a productive procedure.

It emphasized in the merits of its ruling that rulings are based on certainty and certainty, not on doubt and guesswork, and it was proven that the plaintiff was unable to bear the burden of proving his claim.

It ruled to reject the case as it stands, and obligated him to pay fees and expenses.

• The Dubai Civil Court rejected the case due to its lack of evidence.