Abu Dhabi: Gift or loan? Man loses Dh33,000 claim after court finds no proof

Abu Dhabi: The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man seeking to recover Dh33,000 from a woman he claimed to have loaned for the purpose of purchasing a car. The woman denied the allegation, stating the amount was given to her as a gift.

The court ruled that a bank transfer alone constitutes a financial transaction and does not, in itself, prove the purpose behind the transfer. It is the responsibility of the claimant to provide sufficient evidence supporting any specific reason for transferring the funds.

Case background

The claimant filed a civil lawsuit requesting the court to order the defendant to repay Dh33,000, in addition to covering legal fees and associated expenses. He claimed the woman had asked for a loan to buy a car due to financial constraints and had promised to repay him once able. According to him, based on their friendship, he transferred the amount to her, but she began delaying repayment and eventually refused to return the money.

To support his case, the claimant submitted bank transfer documents. In response, the defendant filed a defence memorandum, requesting the dismissal of the case and maintaining that the funds were given to her and her children as a gift.

During the hearing, the claimant reiterated that he transferred the money to the woman’s personal account and the car dealership in mid-2024, following her request for financial assistance in buying a vehicle and settling rental payments. The defendant again denied these claims, insisting that the amount was gifted.

As part of the proceedings, the court administered a supplementary oath to the claimant, in which he stated: “I swear by Almighty God that I lent the defendant the amount of Dh33,000 upon her request, with the understanding that she would repay it. However, she has not repaid any part of this amount, and she remains indebted to me for the full sum. God is my witness to this statement.”

Court verdict
In its judgment, the court made it clear that it is not obligated to explore every detail of the arguments or to advise either party on how to present or support their claims. The court’s decisions are based strictly on the documents and evidence formally submitted.

The judgment pointed out that the claimant’s case hinged solely on his assertion that the money transferred was a loan. However, the court ruled that the transfer on its own was not sufficient to prove this, and it was the claimant’s duty to provide clear evidence of the reason behind the transaction – something he failed to do.

The court clarified that it is not required to compel the defendant to provide supporting documents for her defence or assist her in preparing it. As no solid evidence was submitted to support the claimant’s position, the court ruled to dismiss the case in its current form.

The court also ordered the claimant to bear the legal costs and court fees.