The Abu Dhabi Family Court today dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man against his ex-girlfriend. He demanded that she repay the AED 33,000 loan he had lent her to buy a car. The woman refused, insisting it was a gift from the plaintiff.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court clarified that the official record showed that one person had transferred money to another, and that the person claiming the reason for this was responsible for proving it.

Regarding the details of the case, a man filed a lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend, demanding that he repay the money he had given her, in addition to the court fees and expenses.

The man stated in the record that the defendant had asked him for a loan of AED 33,000 to buy a car. The defendant promised to repay the debt, but ultimately refused to return the money despite his repeated requests, after she had stalled and procrastinated.

It's worth noting that the plaintiff attached copies of the bank transfers to the court to support his claim. In response, the defendant submitted a response memorandum, concluding with a request to dismiss the case.

For its part, the court discovered, after interrogating the plaintiff, that she had requested a loan to purchase a car and pay its rental value in the middle of last year.

The plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant's account and the car showroom account, but she did not repay the loan. During her interrogation, the defendant denied all of the plaintiff's statements, asserting that he had sent the money to her as a gift for her and her children.

It's worth noting that the court directed the plaintiff to take a supplementary oath, in which he swore: "I swear by Almighty God that I loaned the defendant the sum of 33,000 dirhams upon her request, on the condition that she return the amount. However, she did not return it or any part of it, and that this amount is due to me, and God is my witness."

For its part, the court stated in its ruling that it was not obligated to follow up on the various arguments and defenses of the parties, nor to compel the party to provide evidence for its defense or draw its attention to the requirements of this defense. The court based its ruling on the documents and evidence presented.

The court noted that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit seeking to compel the defendant to repay the amount he had transferred to her account, considering it a loan.

The court determined and decided that the transfer was merely a transfer of funds from one person to another, and it was up to the party claiming the reason for it to prove it.

The court noted that the plaintiff's claim was vague and lacked evidence of the veracity of the facts and the reason for the transfers.

The court was not obligated to compel the party to provide evidence for its defense or draw its attention to the requirements of this defense, and it relied solely on the documents before it.

The court dismissed the lawsuit as is and ordered the plaintiff to pay the fees and expenses.