Al Dhafra Court of First Instance has ruled in favour of a man to settle a financial dispute, ordering the defendant to repay Dh30,650 after determining that the amount was a personal loan rather than an investment in a contracting business.
The case dates back to July 18, 2025 when the plaintiff filed a lawsuit requesting that the defendant be ordered to pay this amount of money along with fees and expenses.
He said that his claim to receive this money was based on the fact that he had lent the defendant this amount in instalments between January and May 2025, with the defendant promising to repay in June.
Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
However, the defendant failed to repay despite repeated requests. To prove his claim, the plaintiff submitted bank transfer documents as evidence of the loan.
In response to these claims, the defendant argued that the money was not a loan, but rather expenses related to a partnership in a contracting business between them.
He explained that he had posted an advertisement seeking an investor for a contracting company, after which the plaintiff contacted him and they agreed to partner (the plaintiff with money, the defendant with expertise).
The defendant added that the plaintiff did not provide a car or operational expenses as promised, which caused the business to fail. He maintained that the plaintiff wrongly considered the money a loan, when in fact it was spent on operating costs. The defendant submitted several invoices and documents, some of which were solely in English (printing invoices, car rental agreements, and other purchases).
However, the plaintiff insisted that the money was indeed a loan, not an investment. He pointed out that the defendant admitted receiving the funds but failed to prove there was any actual partnership or specify what work he had carried out.
During the hearings, the defendant requested that the court direct the plaintiff to take a decisive oath to settle the dispute.
The court required the plaintiff to swear the following oath:
“I swear by Almighty God that I lent the defendant Dh30,650 in instalments through bank transfers, that he promised to repay them in June 2025 but failed to do so, and that the money had no connection whatsoever to any partnership in a contracting company.” And the plaintiff swore the oath as required.
Since the plaintiff took the decisive oath — a binding legal procedure — the court ruled in his favour.
The court then ordered:
The case highlights a point repeatedly emphasised by legal experts: the critical importance of thoroughly documenting business relationships.
Written contracts, clear terms of repayment, and supporting documentation not only protect both parties but also provide the courts with concrete evidence in the event of litigation.
