The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases rejected a lawsuit filed by a young man seeking the return of AED16,000, which he claimed to have transferred to another person in exchange for securing him a job with a government or private entity. He alleged that the defendant had misled him into believing he could arrange such employment. The court rejected the claim because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence proving his entitlement to the amount. It stressed that the mere fact that the defendant received the bank transfers was not enough to establish liability for their value.
The young man filed a lawsuit against another individual, seeking an order for the repayment of AED16,000, along with AED10,000 in compensation for the material, moral and psychological harm he claimed to have suffered as a result of the defendant’s actions, delays, failure to fulfil his promise, and refusal to return the money. He also requested that the defendant be ordered to pay the fees and expenses.
He stated that the defendant had misled him by claiming he could secure him a job with a private or government entity and requested money for that purpose. However, after the plaintiff transferred several sums totalling the claimed amount, the defendant failed to fulfil the agreement and did not return the money.
During the proceedings, the plaintiff repeated his claims and submitted evidence consisting of copies of bank transfer receipts issued by a bank in the UAE, as well as copies of telephone correspondence. The defendant did not appear before the court.
The court in its judgement said that the plaintiff had filed the case seeking repayment of AED16,000 that he had transferred to the defendant. It noted that, as a matter of law, a bank transfer is simply the transfer of money from one person to another, and anyone claiming otherwise must prove it.
The court explained that the mere fact that the defendant benefited from the bank transfers made by the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove that he owed the plaintiff the value of those transfers. It added that it was the plaintiff’s responsibility to demonstrate that the transfers represented a debt owed by the defendant.
The court found that the case file contained no evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claims beyond the statements made in his statement of claim. It concluded that there was no proof that the defendant owed the plaintiff any amount arising from the alleged failure to fulfil the agreement on which the claim was based. The court therefore ruled that the claim was unfounded in both fact and law, dismissed it and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs.
