A young man lends his colleague 90.9 thousand dirhams and is unable to prove the debt

The Abu Dhabi Family and Civil and Administrative Courts have rejected a young lawyer against his work colleague, calling for her to return her to 90 thousand and 970 dirhams, borrowed from him, given the plaintiff’s inability to prove the reason for bank transfers.

In the details, a young man filed a lawsuit against his co -worker, in which he demanded that she be paid to pay the amount of 90 thousand and 970 dirhams and the legal benefit of 5% and compensation for the damage within the limits of the amount of 30 thousand dirhams, fees, expenses and law fees, and indicated that the defendant asked him as a work friend to lend it an amount of money of 80 thousand dirhams, and given the relationship of friendship that extended between them The amount loaned it by transferring a bank on her account, as she returned and asked him once again an amount of 2000 pounds, equivalent to 9360 dirhams according to the exchange rate at the time, and after that and at the request of the defendant a third time, he transferred the amount of 344 pounds, equivalent to 1611 dirhams, so that the total amounts he lended to her 90 thousand and 971 dirhams, and when she was required to return it The amounts failed to pay, and presented a support for his claim receipts and revealed a bank account, while the defendant submitted a memorandum in which she demanded the refusal of the lawsuit, and indicated that the reason for the transfer lacked any document proven by borrowing the amount from the plaintiff.

For its part, the court clarified in the reasons for its ruling that, according to the decision of the Civil Transactions Law, the basic principle is that the person’s money is not transferred to another person except in two cases, which are the two people agreeing to that or if the law has decreed that money is transferred, and if the money is transferred in other than these two cases, then it is necessary to return it to its owner, and this is the rule of enrichment for no reason, and the owner of the money who claims to be transferred to another person is not mentioned in one of the two cases. His claim to establish the evidence first on the transfer of his money to the other person, and secondly, it proves that the transfer of his money to that person was done without a legitimate reason.

The court indicated that the constant is one of the papers that the plaintiff has proven to transfer the amount demanded according to what was attached to a bank transfer, but that he did not provide what is proven that this transfer was for a financial loan according to what he claims, and the defendant denied that the reason for the transfer was for the purpose of borrowing, with what the plaintiff was unable to prove the reason for the transfer, and thus he claimed contrary to the original, which is that that transfer was according to him – and that the basis – as the basis – The burden of proving otherwise is its responsibility, which is with which the lawsuit has come in a non -place of reality and the law, and the court ruled the refusal of the lawsuit and obligated the plaintiff to expenses and in exchange for law fees.