The Dubai Court of Cassation upheld a ruling by the Real Estate and Appeal Court of First Instance to reject a lawsuit filed by a foreign man of Arab origin against his older sister, accusing her of seizing four residential units, after he asked her to buy them for his benefit and transferred their value to her, and accused her husband of colluding with her.
In the merits of its ruling, the court of first instance stated that the lawsuit was based on statements sent without certain evidence, and it refused to direct the decisive oath to the defendant.
The plaintiff did not accept the initial ruling, so he appealed to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the ruling. He continued the litigation process, appealing to the Court of Cassation, which upheld the ruling, after being satisfied that he was informed of all the legal aspects of the case.
In detail, the plaintiff 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 that he delivered to her by hand, bringing the total money he paid to 5 million and 554 thousand dirhams.
He explained that he resorted to this method, due to his inability to open a bank account at that time in 2014, so he asked her to buy real estate and register it in her name at first, with the ownership being transferred to him later upon request, pointing out that his sister (the defendant) also pledged, according to The agreement was to open a bank account for her brother’s investments, to deposit the rental proceeds of the residential units referred to in this account.
He pointed out that she had registered in her name four residential units in upscale areas, which she bought for his benefit, for the amount of 6 million and 540 thousand dirhams, with the condition that she would manage them with her husband on his behalf, but they had breached their obligations, so they refused to hand over to him the bank account details for the apartments, or pay the rental proceeds for the units since the date of purchase. In 2014 and until the lawsuit was filed this year, under the pretext of forgetfulness, or that the older defendant sister used her moral influence to embarrass him so that he would not demand his rights, then in the end she refused to transfer ownership of the apartments to him when he asked her to do so, which ultimately prompted him to sue her.
For his part, the legal representative of the defendant and her husband, the legal advisor, Muhammad Najeeb, said: The ownership of the units in dispute is registered in the name of the defendant in the relevant authority in the emirate, indicating that she has attached to the lawsuit papers her ownership certificates for the disputed apartments. Pointing out that her request from her brother, the “plaintiff,” to help her pay the service fees is normal in light of the sibling relationship.
For its part, the Court of First Instance stated in the merits of its ruling that the plaintiff’s documents lacked any evidence or agreement with the defendant to purchase the disputed units for his benefit or in his name, noting that the burden of proof rests on him, but he only provided sent statements.
She explained that the letters exchanged between the plaintiff and his sister, the defendant, were devoid of any 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 their rental proceeds.
Regarding the existence of mutual financial transfers, and the plaintiff based that they were part of the deal, the court of first instance 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 based on the plaintiff’s request, after it saw that this request was not productive in the case, because it lacked any evidence of the buying and selling incident, and because the court found in the case papers enough to form its doctrine without the need for an oath.
The Court of Cassation stated in the merits of its ruling that the appealed ruling has its origins established in the papers, and there is no violation of the law, noting that the financial transfers attached by the plaintiff do not indicate that they were for the purpose of purchasing real estate for his benefit, and therefore it ruled to reject the appeal.
#woman #acquitted #seizing #apartments #younger #brother
