A European signs a debt contract worth 1.74 million dirhams instead of an “investment partnership”

A European person filed a lawsuit against a lawyer in which he claimed that he was deceived and misled by the defendant, who convinced him to sign a document that he thought was an investment partnership contract, but it later turned out to be an acknowledgment of indebtedness worth one million and 740 thousand dirhams.

The plaintiff said in his statement of claim that he agreed with a lawyer to invest an amount of 1.74 million dirhams, with the profits being shared together. The two parties did not write this agreement down in an official contract, but they exchanged messages via the WhatsApp application, which documented the intention of cooperation and the allocated amount.

According to what was stated in the lawsuit papers, the lawyer later informed him of the necessity of documenting the agreement before a notary public to guarantee the rights of both parties, pointing out that he agreed in good faith, and went to the same lawyer’s office, where the document was prepared electronically through the office’s system, and he did not imagine at the time that the document he would sign was not a partnership contract, but rather an acknowledgment of indebtedness requiring him to pay the same amount to the defendant.

The plaintiff added in his complaint that he is not fluent in the Arabic language, and that the lawyer did not provide him with a certified translation, but rather simply told him that signing was a routine procedure to prove the partnership, without explaining to him the content of the document or its legal effects, stressing that he signed based on trust, only to discover later that what he signed was a financial commitment that had no connection to the original agreement.

He stated that the document was completed through the electronic system of the lawyer’s office, and not from his personal account as required by law, indicating that this is a violation of the regulatory procedures that stipulate that the holder must submit the declaration himself or through an official agent. He also stated that the notary public did not verify his understanding of the content of the declaration and did not read it to him in a language he understood, which made the notarization – according to his claim – devoid of legitimacy.

He continued that he filed a criminal report at the police station in which he accused the lawyer of committing the crime of deception and fraud by exploiting his ignorance of the language and deceiving him into signing a document that contradicted the real agreement between them.

During the consideration of the case before the Civil Court in Dubai, the plaintiff submitted a request to include an employee in the lawyer’s office as the person who communicated with him via video call, and asked him to acknowledge the amount without providing the opportunity to review the text or translation, indicating that the declaration was made through the employee’s personal phone, and not through the plaintiff’s official system.

For his part, the defendant’s agent submitted a detailed defense memorandum, in which he denied everything stated by the plaintiff, explaining that the latter signed the declaration before a notary public in the presence of witnesses and of his own free will, without coercion or misleading, and that the document was completed in accordance with legal principles, which gives it official status and full authority in evidence.

After deliberating the memorandums and pleadings, the court reviewed the relevant legal texts, most notably Article (7) of Federal Decree Law No. 20 of 2022, regarding the organization of the notary public profession, which obligates the notary public to verify the identity and eligibility of the parties, read the content of the transaction, and explain its effects before signing it. The court also relied on previous rulings of the Dubai Court of Cassation, which confirmed that the signatures of interested parties before a notary public acquire official status and may not be challenged except by forgery.

The court explained in its rationale that fraud or deception that spoils consent is not proven unless fraudulent means are used that would deceive the other party and force him to sign something other than what he wants, and that merely claiming lack of understanding or ignorance of the language is not alone sufficient to invalidate the transaction as long as it is done before a competent official body.

The court added that the plaintiff did not submit anything proving that the notary public failed to perform his duty or refrained from reading or translating, and he did not file any challenge to the integrity of the documentation procedures. Therefore, the declaration signed before a notary public remains valid and effective in itself, and its validity may not be compromised in the absence of conclusive evidence of forgery or fraud.

The court concluded that the lawsuit is based on no basis in law or fact, and that what the plaintiff claims does not change the fact that he signed an official debt acknowledgment before a competent notary, so it issued its ruling rejecting the lawsuit and obligating the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses and one thousand dirhams in exchange for attorney’s fees.

• The plaintiff claimed that he did not understand the language of the “contract”… and he signed it based on trust.