Asian relies on ‘lost declaration’ to prove his entitlement to Dh1.1 million

An Asian national filed a civil lawsuit against another person of the same nationality, demanding that he return a loan he had granted him worth 1,150,000 dirhams. However, he merely submitted a copy of a statement attributed to the defendant, and excused himself before the court by saying that “the original statement is missing.”

In turn, the defendant denied evading repayment of the loan, and challenged the validity of the copy of the acknowledgment, which included his admission of receiving the amount in the form of checks, and his commitment to return it on an agreed date.

After examining the case by the Dubai Civil Court, it concluded that “the plaintiff was unable to prove his claim, and the copy of the acknowledgment he submitted was without legal evidence,” and rejected the case, obligating him to pay the expenses.

In detail, an Asian person filed a civil lawsuit against another person of the same nationality, demanding that he pay an amount of 1,150,000 dirhams, in addition to the legal interest of 5% from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment, and obligating him to pay the fees and expenses.

The plaintiff said in his lawsuit that the defendant borrowed the disputed amount from him and received it in installments in the form of checks from his account.

He added that the defendant signed a declaration stating his name, information and nationality, and said: “I received an amount of 1,150,000 dirhams as a refundable loan to purchase an apartment, and I pledge to return the full amount on the specified date.”

The plaintiff pointed out that the defendant did not abide by his pledge, and tried to resolve the matter with him amicably, but he ignored him, which prompted him to file the lawsuit, and he attached a copy of the checks and a copy of the acknowledgment.

In turn, the plaintiff submitted a memorandum through his legal representative, in which he denied the lawsuit and stated that the checks were payment of his dues to the plaintiff, and that he did not borrow from him. Rather, he requested the court to oblige him to submit the original declaration to challenge it on the grounds of forgery.

In response, the plaintiff stated that the original declaration was missing and that he only had a copy of it, and requested to hear witnesses.

After examining the case, the court stated in the grounds of its ruling that according to Article 54 of the Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff must prove the right he claims, and the defendant may deny it. The facts to be proven must be related to the case, productive in it, and acceptable.

She pointed out that it was clear to her that the plaintiff had filed his lawsuit based on the existence of a loan contract between him and the defendant, and the latter’s commitment to return the amount as a loan, while the defendant disputed the nature of the money he received, and decided that it was in fulfillment of his rights, and not a loan.

The court explained that the lawsuit lacked evidence of the loan, as the plaintiff submitted a copy of a statement attributed to the defendant, which the defendant denied, so the plaintiff did not submit the original, and thus the copy of the statement became without any evidentiary weight or weight, which made the lawsuit merely unsupported statements. The court also does not find that the plaintiff’s request to hear witnesses regarding the loan is a productive procedure.

She stressed that judgments are based on certainty and conviction, not on doubt and conjecture. It was proven to her that the plaintiff was unable to meet the burden of proving his claim, and he is the one legally charged with proving his right to his claims, and therefore the case was rejected as is.

It was decided to oblige the plaintiff to pay the lawsuit fees and expenses.