The “decisive oath” acquits a woman of a debt of 800 thousand dirhams

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court ruled to reject the lawsuit of a woman who accused her friend of borrowing 800,000 dirhams from her and refused to return it.

The court indicated that the oath determined that the defendant was not indebted to the plaintiff, in addition to that “the transfer is merely the transfer of money from one person to another, and whoever claims the reason for this must prove it.”

In detail, a woman filed a lawsuit against a friend of hers, in which she requested that she be obliged to pay her an amount of 800 thousand dirhams, the sum of the amounts she transferred from her bank account to the defendant’s bank account, and the amounts received in cash, which she refused to return unjustly to the plaintiff, while obliging her to amount to 50 thousand. A dirham in compensation for the damages she suffered as a result of her money being unlawfully withheld and not benefiting from it, in addition to legal interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the claim until full payment. Obligating her to pay fees, expenses, and attorney fees.

The plaintiff indicated that an amount of 500 thousand dirhams had been transferred from her account to the defendant’s account, upon the latter’s request, as a debt, in addition to the defendant’s delivery of an amount of 300 thousand dirhams in cash by hand delivery, also as a debt, without her taking it as a document.

Before deciding on the matter, it demanded that the case be referred for investigation regarding the amount of 300,000 dirhams that the defendant received in cash, and as a precaution to direct the decisive oath to the defendant regarding it, while hearing the testimony of the prosecution witness.

She provided support for her claim with a copy of a bank transfer. The supervising judge decided to give the defendant the decisive oath, and she took it.

For its part, Al-Hikma rejected the request to oblige the defendant to return the amount of 500 thousand dirhams, transferred to her as a debt via a bank transfer, noting that what is established in the court is that the transfer is nothing more than a mere transfer of money from one person to another, and whoever claims the reason for this must prove it. Especially since the plaintiff did not present to the court significant evidence that the bank transfer she claims was due to and appropriately due to a debt owed to her by the defendant, especially since the copies of the bank statement did not indicate the fact of the alleged debt. On her part, this consideration does not prejudice the plaintiff’s request to hear the testimony of the prosecution witness, because the testimony of the parent for the branch and the branch for the parent is not legally permissible.

Regarding the plaintiff’s request to oblige the defendant to return to her the amount of 300,000 dirhams, which was given to her in cash as a debt, the court indicated that the decisive oath is the one that the litigant directs to his opponent in whatever state the case is in, when he lacks evidence, and when his opponent denies what he claims.

Her oath, or abandonment of her oath, will result in resolving the dispute regarding the incident that was the subject of it, such that the adversary may no longer demand proof of that by evidence or by appointing an expert, etc.

Therefore, the decisive oath sworn by the defendant settled the dispute regarding the present request, making it necessary for the court to decide to reject the request.

The court ruled to reject the case and obligate the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

Court:

. A transfer is merely the transfer of money from one person to another, and whoever claims the reason for this must prove it.