«Dubai Appeal» upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit due to lack of evidence

Man accuses his older sister of taking over 4 apartments

The Court of First Instance refused to give the defendant a "decisive oath". Cinematographer: Patrick Castillo

A man (an American of Arab descent) filed a lawsuit against his older sister, claiming that she had seized four apartments, which he asked her to buy for his benefit in Dubai, in collusion with her husband, and after the lawsuit was deliberated by the Real Estate Court of First Instance, it ended up rejecting the lawsuit, because the plaintiff relied on statements sent without certain evidence, and also refused to direct the decisive oath to the defendant, and the Real Estate Court of Appeal upheld the ruling.

In detail, the plaintiff stated in the lawsuit papers that he handed over money to his sister to buy real estate for his benefit in Dubai, through money transfers through two other sisters, in addition to amounts delivered by hand, bringing the total money he handed over to her five 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, and to transfer ownership to him later upon request, pointing out that his sister the defendant undertook, according to the agreement, to open a bank account for her brother's investments, to deposit the proceeds of the rental of housing units in it.

He pointed out that she registered in her name four housing units that she bought for his benefit, worth six million and 540 thousand dirhams, to be managed with her husband for her 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 to him When he demanded it, he eventually sued her.

For his part, the legal representative of the defendant and her husband, legal counsel Mohamed Naguib, said that the ownership of the units in dispute is fixed for the defendant, and registered in her name in the Land Department, pointing out that the mutual financial transfers between the parties to the lawsuit are 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 lies 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.

With regard to 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 give the decisive oath to the sister (the defendant), 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 case 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 considered the appeal, and the pleadings of the parties, and ended up rejecting his appeal, and upholding the appealed judgment.

• The man allegedly handed over 5.5 million dirhams to his older sister.