UAE Court ordered Khaleeji man to repay his friend DH75,000 for breach of trust
In Dubai's Civil Court, what began as a friendship between two individuals from the Gulf region spiraled into a legal feud over alleged borrowed funds.
Each accused the other of failing to repay a sum, leading to a judicial ruling favoring one party, awarding them 75 thousand dirhams after they took a decisive oath.
The disagreement started when one buddy sued the other, demanding reimbursement for seventy-five thousand dirhams (out of the one hundred eighty thousand dirhams) he had transferred into the defendant's account. The defendant was accused of not following the repayment plan that was agreed upon.
According to the plaintiff, he deposited the funds at the defendant's request, with the understanding that the latter would return the sum within two weeks. While the defendant repaid 105 thousand dirhams within the stipulated timeframe, he purportedly failed to reimburse the remaining 75 thousand dirhams despite several requests.
To the plaintiff's surprise, the defendant initiated a dispute resolution process, alleging that he had advanced 105 thousand dirhams to the plaintiff, which the latter had not repaid.
Conversely, the defendant counter-sued, seeking the return of 105 thousand dirhams, claiming it was an advance payment. He argued that their financial dealings were related to a shared interest in buying and selling high-end watches, where he had fronted money for a transaction.
In response, the court appointed a financial expert to assess the situation, determining that the relationship between the parties was based on personal friendship without formal contracts or documented correspondence. The evidence, primarily WhatsApp conversations, was deemed insufficient to establish commercial transactions.
In the end, the plaintiff was given a crucial oath by the court, and she swore under the prescribed conditions. As a result, the plaintiff received an order for the defendant to return the 75,000 dirhams. The joint action, which called for the recovery of 105,000 dirhams, was nevertheless dropped. Based on the oath taken by one of the disputants, the court's ruling settled the disagreement and required reparation.
