Ajman court rejects woman’s Dh10m property ownership claim

Ajman: The Federal Court of First Instance in Ajman has dismissed a woman's lawsuit seeking to cancel the transfer of a property registered in her name and claim its estimated value of Dh10 million, ruling that she was the registered owner in name only and that the property belonged to a group of partners who financed and acquired it.

The court rejected her request to restore the property to her name and an alternative claim for Dh10 million in compensation, together with 12 per cent legal interest, court costs and legal fees. It also ordered her to bear the costs of the case and pay Dh1,000 towards the defendant’s legal fees.

According to court records, the woman argued that the property was registered in her name and that she had granted the defendant a general power of attorney to manage her affairs. She alleged that he misused that authority by transferring the property to himself without her knowledge or consent.

The defendant, represented by lawyer Abdullah Bin Hatem of Abdullah Mohammed Rasul & Partners Lawyers & Legal Consultants, denied the allegations, arguing that the plaintiff was never the property's beneficial owner and that its registration in her name was merely a nominee arrangement.

He told the court that the property's true ownership rested with a group of partners, including the plaintiff’s husband, who had collectively financed and purchased it. The transfer, he said, was carried out to return ownership to one of its rightful owners.

To support the defence, the defendant submitted a concealed partnership agreement identifying the property's actual owners. He also relied on findings from an earlier criminal case in which he was acquitted of charges of embezzlement and unlawful appropriation, while the related civil claim was dismissed.

Court documents showed that during the criminal investigation, the plaintiff acknowledged that her husband had arranged for the property to be registered in her name and that she had not contributed any personal funds towards its purchase.

In its judgment, the court said final criminal rulings are binding on civil courts regarding facts conclusively established in both proceedings. It noted that the criminal court had already examined the property transfer and allegations of misuse of the power of attorney, finding no criminal or civil wrongdoing by the defendant.

The criminal court also concluded that the transfer had been carried out with the consent of the property's true owners and found no evidence of fraud or unlawful conduct.

The court further rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the transfer violated legal provisions restricting agents from purchasing property entrusted to them for sale, ruling that those protections apply to genuine owners and did not apply in this case because the plaintiff had no beneficial ownership interest.

Referring to the partnership agreement, the plaintiff’s own admissions and statements from other partners, the court concluded that she was the registered owner in name only and had no financial stake in the property. It found that the defendant was one of the property's genuine owners and that the transfer merely restored ownership to its rightful holder.

The court also ruled that the plaintiff lacked the legal interest required to pursue the claim, noting that cancelling the transfer would not restore any legitimate right but would instead grant her ownership of a property in which she had no actual interest.

Addressing the position of the plaintiff’s husband, who was identified as one of the partners, the court said any dispute concerning his rights must be pursued through partnership-related claims, including accounting between partners, enforcement of partnership rights or dissolution of the partnership. Such matters, it said, did not give the plaintiff the legal right to seek cancellation of the property transfer.

Addressing the plaintiff's husband's position as a partner in the concealed partnership agreement, the court said any dispute over his rights must be pursued through partnership-related claims, including accounting between partners, enforcement of partnership rights or liquidation of the partnership.

The court ruled that such claims did not give the plaintiff , who was not a party to the partnership agreement and had no beneficial ownership interest in the property , the right to seek cancellation of the transfer or restoration of the property to her name.

Finding that the lawsuit lacked a legal basis, the court dismissed the plaintiff's main and alternative requests and ordered her to pay court costs and Dh1,000 in legal fees.