WhatsApp messages resolve a family dispute between two women over 52 thousand dirhams

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court ruled to reject a lawsuit filed by a woman against a relative, in which she demanded that she be obligated to return 52 thousand dirhams, which she said she had lent to her in installments. The court indicated that bank transfers alone are not sufficient to prove the existence of a loan, especially in light of the presence of evidence suggesting that the transferred amounts were related to the two parties’ participation in living expenses and work related to an inherited property.

In the details, a woman filed a lawsuit against a relative of hers, in which she demanded that she be obligated to return to her an amount of 52 thousand dirhams, and that she be obliged to pay her an amount of 20 thousand dirhams in compensation for the material, moral and psychological damages that she suffered, noting that the defendant obtained sums of money from her as a loan and debt in installments in the amount of the total claim, and therefore she has the right to demand the recovery of these amounts, especially since she has suffered material and moral damages as a result of the loss of… The gain, and the loss that befell her, in addition to the pain and grief she suffered as a result of the seizure of her money. She provided support for her claim a bank statement for the years from 2021 to 2026, while the plaintiff submitted a response memorandum in which she demanded that the lawsuit be dismissed.

For its part, the court explained in the merits of its ruling that the plaintiff based her claim on the account statement showing various bank transfers of varying amounts, over several years, sent from her account to the defendant’s account, based on the fact that these funds were on the basis of a loan. However, what is clear from reviewing the messages exchanged via the “WhatsApp” application, presented within the defendant’s document portfolio, is that the two parties to the dispute participated in some living expenses, in addition to some work on the property that was transferred to them. And others by inheritance, and this may be supported by some invoices, especially since the plaintiff’s bank transfers took place over a period of about five years and in varying sums of money, and they were mostly irregular, which suggests that they were in exchange for these expenses and these works, which logically leads to the preponderance of the defendant’s defense, which has become very likely according to the written evidence presented by her, the authenticity of which the plaintiff did not dispute.

The court pointed out that the transfer through bank accounts alone does not constitute evidence in itself of the defendant’s preoccupation, and the preponderance of the papers and documents was that this claim was not valid, which would naturally apply to the plaintiff’s request for compensation as well, because the elements of tort liability were not proven, which established the court’s certainty that this lawsuit lacked a valid legal basis, and the court ruled to reject the lawsuit and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses.