A man accuses his sister of seizing 4 apartments. It is requested that she be bound by an "oath"

image

A financial dispute over the ownership of four housing units in luxurious areas of the Emirate of Dubai between an American man and his older sister has moved to the courts, as he filed a lawsuit against her, claiming that she seized the apartments after asking her to buy them for him, and accused her husband of colluding with her.

After deliberation of the lawsuit by the Real Estate Court of First Instance, it concluded that the lawsuit was dismissed, because the plaintiff relied on statements sent without certain evidence, and refused to direct the decisive oath to his sister the defendant, and the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance ruling.

In detail, the plaintiff "businessman" stated in the lawsuit papers that he handed over part of his money to his sister to buy real estate for his benefit, through financial transfers through two other sisters to them, in addition to amounts delivered by hand, bringing the total money he paid to 5 million and 554 thousand dirhams.

He explained that he resorted to this path because he was unable to open a bank account at the time in 2014, so he asked her to buy real estate and register it in her name at first, provided that the ownership would be transferred to him later upon request, pointing out that his sister the defendant also pledged - according to the agreement - to open a bank account for her brother's investments, to deposit the proceeds of the rent of the housing units referred to in this account.

He pointed out that she registered in her name four housing units in high-end areas, which she bought for him, for an amount of 6 million and 540 thousand dirhams, to be managed with her husband for his account, but they breached their obligations, so they refrained from handing him the bank account data for the apartments, or paying the proceeds of the rent of the units from the date of purchase in 2014 until the lawsuit was filed during the current year, under the pretext of forgetting, or the defendant's older sister used her moral influence to embarrass him so as not to claim his rights, and then finally refrained from transferring The ownership of the apartments was given to him when he demanded it, which eventually led him to sue her.

For his part, the legal representative of the defendant sister and her husband, arbitrator and legal advisor Mohammed Najib, said that the ownership of the disputed units is fixed for the defendant, and is registered in her name in the Dubai Land Department, pointing out that the mutual financial transfers between the parties to the lawsuit are only transactions between family members, which have no connection with the properties owned by the defendant.

He added that the defendant attached to the lawsuit papers, her ownership certificates for the disputed apartments, which she bought with her money, noting that her request from her brother "plaintiff" to help her pay the service fees is normal in light of the relationship of brothers, contrary to what the plaintiff stated.

For its part, the Court of First Instance stated in its reasoning that the plaintiff's documents were devoid of any evidence or agreement with the defendants to purchase the disputed units for his benefit or in his name, pointing out that the burden of proof falls on him, but he only provided statements sent.

She explained that the letters exchanged between the plaintiff and his sister the defendant were completely devoid of evidence of his ownership of the apartments or promises from her to transfer ownership to him, or even an acknowledgment of his right to sell these units or rent the proceeds thereof.

Regarding the existence of mutual money transfers, and the plaintiff based on the fact that they were part of the transaction, the court stated that the papers also lacked evidence that they were related to the real estate owned by the defendant, and that these were normal financial transactions between the plaintiff and his family members.

The court refused to direct the decisive oath to the defendant sister at the request of the plaintiff, after it considered that this request was not productive in the lawsuit because it lacked any evidence of the fact of buying and selling, and because the court found in the lawsuit papers sufficient to form its belief without the need for an oath.

In turn, the plaintiff appealed the first instance judgment before the Court of Appeal, which heard the appeal, and the parties' pleadings, which ended up rejecting his appeal and upholding the appealed judgment.