An Arab requests the transfer of ownership of 4 cars in exchange for a loan he granted to his friend

A person of Arab nationality stipulated that his friend transfer ownership of four cars to him in exchange for granting him a loan in the amount of 150,000 dirhams. When the latter defaulted, the plaintiff resorted to the civil court in Dubai, which ruled that the debtor be obligated to return the amount, but refused to transfer ownership of the cars, which the plaintiff considered as security for the debt.

The details of the case go back to an agreement between two people residing in the country, as the plaintiff explained that he loaned the defendant a sum of money, and wrote a debt declaration between them, including the value of the loan and the mechanism for repaying it in installments.

According to the statement, the defendant pledged to pay the amount in installments, and also provided a guarantee in the form of four vehicles owned by him, the value of which exceeds the amount borrowed, with the plaintiff having the right, according to the agreement, to transfer ownership in the event of non-payment.

The plaintiff indicated that the defendant did not commit to returning the amount on the scheduled date despite the friendly demands, which prompted him to file a lawsuit, demanding proof of the validity and effectiveness of the declaration, obliging the defendant to pay the loan amount, or enabling him to collect it in kind by owning the cars subject to the guarantee.

During the trial of the case, the defendant did not appear despite being legally notified, whether before the case management office or before the court, which resulted in it hearing his confrontation as a presentence ruling.

The court explained in the merits of its ruling that the principle of the law is that the burden of proving the right falls on the plaintiff, and that customary documents are considered evidence against the person who signed them unless he explicitly denies them. The law does not require a specific form for proving obligations, unless there is a contrary text or agreement.

She also pointed out that the legal rule stipulates that “you have to pay what you took until you pay it back,” which requires that the money be returned to its owner once it is proven that it was received. By applying that to the incident, the court finds out through the acknowledgment of indebtedness signed by the defendant that his debt is occupied by the amount in question, as the acknowledgment included an explicit acknowledgment of the debt, which the court considered sufficient written evidence to prove the indebtedness.

The lawsuit papers also lacked evidence of the defendant’s payment of the amount, and he did not present any defense or document that undermines the statement or casts doubt on its authenticity, which strengthens his authority and confirms his commitment to payment.

Regarding the request to transfer ownership of cars, the court explained that the plaintiff did not provide proof of the defendant’s ownership of those vehicles with official documents, and that ruling on him for the financial amount sufficed with this request, noting that the issue of execution on the debtor’s funds remains one of the enforcement procedures subsequent to the ruling, and is not the subject of a decision on the merits of the case.

The court ended up obligating the defendant to pay the amount of 150,000 dirhams, rejecting all other requests, and obliging him to pay expenses and attorney fees.