Dubai court orders man to repay Dh39.7m to brother and sister-in-law

Dubai: The Dubai Civil Court has ordered a Gulf national to pay Dh39.7 million to his brother and sister-in-law after finding him guilty of withholding rental proceeds from several jointly owned properties he had managed alone since the mid-1990s, Al Khaleej newspaper reported.

The verdict ends a decades-long family dispute over profits and income from several shared properties.

According to court documents, the defendant — who oversaw the management, leasing, and rent collection — failed to share the revenue or provide financial statements to his relatives, taking advantage of their trust and family ties.

The case began when a Gulf woman filed a lawsuit against her husband’s brother, demanding her share of rent proceeds from a property co-owned since 1996. She claimed he had leased the units, collected the rents, and withheld all financial information and payments.

The woman said her long-standing trust in the defendant, based on family relations, allowed him to manage the property unchecked for nearly three decades. Her husband later filed two additional lawsuits, accusing his brother of monopolising the management of four other jointly owned properties, signing leases in his own name, and keeping all rental income for himself.

Despite holding valid ownership documents, the plaintiff said he had not received a single dirham of his share for over 25 years.

Given the close link between the cases, the court merged the three lawsuits into one file and appointed a financial expert to review lease contracts, records, and rental proceeds over the years.

The expert’s report found that the wife was owed Dh6.25 million, while her husband was entitled to Dh14.2 million from four properties, plus Dh19.26 million from other jointly owned real estate — totalling Dh39.7 million.

The court dismissed the defendant’s claim that the case was time-barred, ruling that the withheld funds were not recurring payments subject to limitation but rather trust assets held under his custodianship.

Legal expert Dr Alaa Nasr explained that the court viewed the withheld rents as “funds held in trust,” which the defendant was both legally and morally obliged to return. His refusal to distribute the earnings, the court concluded, constituted a clear breach of fiduciary duty.