Abu Dhabi court rejects AED156,000 loan claim, says transfers not proof of debt
The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Court has rejected a lawsuit in which a young man sought the recovery of AED156,000 he claimed to have lent to a friend through a series of bank transfers. The court held that the mere act of transferring funds does not, by itself, establish the existence of a debt or the reason for the payment.
The lawsuit and the plaintiff’s demands
Court records indicate that the plaintiff filed the case against his friend, demanding repayment of the principal amount of AED156,000. He also asked for AED94,000 in compensation for what he described as damage and losses resulting from the alleged failure to repay, together with 5 per cent legal interest from the date the lawsuit was initiated until full settlement. Moreover, he requested that the judgment be enforced immediately without a guarantee and that the defendant be ordered to cover the fees, expenses and printing costs.
The plaintiff told the court that the defendant had repeatedly approached him for financial help, explaining that he was experiencing a difficult period. The plaintiff said he responded by transferring the requested sum in several instalments to the defendant’s bank account on the understanding that the money would be returned as soon as possible. When he later asked for repayment, the defendant allegedly avoided paying, even though he did not deny that the debt existed.
Evidence and the defendant’s absence
To back his claim, the plaintiff provided screenshots of WhatsApp conversations with the defendant. He also submitted a detailed list of the number and value of the bank transfers, a screenshot that he said showed the transfers, and a certificate of bank obligations. The defendant, despite being formally notified, did not appear in court, nor did he send a legal representative.
Court’s ruling and legal principles
The court observed that the case revolved around the repayment of AED156,000 that the plaintiff had transferred to the defendant. It stated that, under established legal principles, a bank transfer is nothing more than the movement of money from one person to another. Anyone who claims that such a transfer represents a loan or another legal obligation must provide evidence to prove that claim.
The court further noted that the basic legal presumption is that a person is free from debt unless the opposite is proven. Because the plaintiff did not present evidence demonstrating the existence of a debt or the specific reason for the transfers, the claim could not be upheld. The court also remarked that it was not obliged to require the defendant to produce evidence for his defence or to highlight the requirements of that defence; it was entitled to base its judgment solely on the documents that had been placed before it.
Consequently, the court dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay the court fees and expenses.
