The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance decided to prove the ownership of a Range Rover by a businessman, and to oblige his driver to re-register the vehicle in his name. Infringement of the rights of other bona fide persons.
In the details, a businessman filed a lawsuit against his driver, in which he demanded to prove his ownership of a McLaren car worth 1,358,741 dirhams, and a Range Rover car worth 568,000 dirhams, cancel the registration of the two vehicles in the name of the defendant and register them in his name, and oblige the defendant to hand him over the two vehicles, and invalidate any An act issued by the defendant in their regard with obligating him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney’s fees.
He explained that he likes to own luxury cars and the defendant works for him as a driver, and since there were decisions that prevented renewing the ownership of any vehicle in the event of another expired vehicle and as a result of the plaintiff’s two cars (Ferrari and McLaren P1) expired and the ownership not being renewed, and it was impossible for him to renew the cars registered in his name, The driver suggested registering the vehicle in his name so that its insurance and license could be renewed, and the defendant pledged to re-register the vehicle to him after the completion of the registration and insurance procedures and the plaintiff’s return from his travels, and given the trust and the fact that the driver was working under his control and supervision, the two vehicles were registered in his name, and after his return from travel, the driver was asked to transfer ownership The two vehicles were to his name, but he refused and refused without justification, and a complaint was opened against him, but the report was kept because the dispute is civil and the vehicle is a McLaren type in the defendant’s possession, and the plaintiff refused to hand over the vehicle.
The report of the engineering expert delegated by the court showed that the two vehicles in the lawsuit were purchased by the plaintiff and paid their value, and in June 2019 he ceded them to the driver, and the defendant relinquished the first vehicle to another person, while the second is still under his name, but it is in the possession of the plaintiff.
In the ruling, the court stated that the vehicle registration and licensing system at the relevant traffic department was not decided to prove their ownership, but rather a condition for their movement on the roads and a means to determine the official who can be referred to in the event of traffic violations, pointing out that the evidence in the papers and from the experience report that the plaintiff made By purchasing the two vehicles and registered with the Traffic and Vehicles Licensing Department in the name of the plaintiff, the expert indicated that the two vehicles had been transferred to the Vehicles and Drivers Licensing Department to the name of the defendant, and the expert was unable to obtain any document proving the process of buying and selling between the two parties to the lawsuit or any commercial relationship between them.
The court explained that the defendant joined the company owned by the plaintiff, and the court found that the two vehicles were registered in the name of the defendant, and the defendant did not provide evidence that he had purchased the two vehicles, and he disposed of one of them a month before filing the lawsuit, which makes it impossible to oblige the defendant to register the McLaren vehicle. The plaintiff invalidated any action taken by the defendant that would prejudice the rights of other bona fide persons. The court decided to reject the request regarding the McLain vehicle, and ruled to prove the plaintiff’s ownership of the Range Rover vehicle, and oblige the defendant to register it in the name of the plaintiff and address the Traffic Department with that, and he refused otherwise. of requests with obligating the defendant to pay the fees and expenses of the lawsuit.