Dubai court throws out Dh2.2m forgery claim over promissory note

A Dubai court has dismissed a forgery challenge filed by two Arab nationals against a promissory note valued at Dh2.2 million, after ruling that the case lacked seriousness and legal interest.

The claimants alleged that the original amount on the note had been tampered with by adding extra zeros using different and non-contemporaneous ink, in an attempt by the defendants to inflate the value from Dh200,000 to more than Dh2 million.

The plaintiffs requested that the defendants be compelled to produce the original promissory note and that it be referred to Dubai Police’s forensic laboratory for examination of the ink, additions and the authenticity of the signature and recorded data. However, after reviewing the case, the court ruled the lawsuit inadmissible, Emarat Al Youm Arabic daily reported.

In its judgment, the Dubai Court of First Instance rejected the forgery claim, noting that it had been brought in relation to a Dh2.2 million promissory note which the claimants said had been “padded” with different ink inconsistent with the rest of the document. They had sought forensic examination to establish alleged forgery.

The claimants said the dispute stemmed from debt rescheduling agreements concluded with the defendants in 2016 and 2018 relating to the construction of residential rooms on specified land plots. Under those agreements, debts exceeding Dh11.4 million were rescheduled to be paid through 24 equal cheques. They alleged the defendants later defaulted on their obligations, prompting legal action and the appointment of an accounting expert.

During expert proceedings in an earlier dispute, the plaintiffs said they were surprised by the submission of a photocopy of the Dh2.2 million promissory note, which led them to deny it and challenge it as a forgery, while seeking production of the original for technical examination.

The defendants argued that the case was inadmissible against some of them for lack of standing, and unfounded in law, stating that they only possessed a carbon copy of the note and that the original document was not in their possession but held by the claimants themselves.

In its reasoning, the court said an original forgery claim is not admissible if the document has already been relied upon in ongoing proceedings, as allegations of forgery in such cases must be raised as a defence before the court hearing the main dispute.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs had explicitly acknowledged the authenticity of the signature on the promissory note, which legally implies the validity of its contents unless erasure or alteration is proven. The court said it was not convinced such tampering had occurred, particularly given that the defendants did not possess the original document.

The court concluded that the forgery challenge lacked seriousness and that the claimants had no legal interest in compelling the defendants to produce an original document not in their possession. It therefore ruled the case inadmissible and ordered the claimants to pay court fees and expenses.