The Abu Dhabi Court for Family, Civil and Administrative Claims dismissed a lawsuit filed by a father against his daughter, in which he sought to compel her to transfer ownership of a vehicle he had allowed her to use into her name, or alternatively return it to him. The lawsuit was based on his claim that she had refused to transfer ownership and pay traffic fines worth AED500. The court dismissed the case after the daughter took a decisive oath stating that she had not received the vehicle and that it was not in her possession.
According to the records, the father filed a lawsuit against his daughter seeking an order requiring her to complete all procedures necessary to transfer ownership of the vehicle into her name at the Traffic and Licensing Department. Alternatively, if she refused to transfer ownership, he requested that she be ordered to return and hand over the vehicle to him. He stated that the vehicle was worth AED10,000 and that the accumulated traffic violations amounted to AED500. He also reserved the right to seek compensation in the future for the total value of traffic violations, fees and financial penalties arising from her use of the vehicle from the date she was notified of the lawsuit. He requested that she be ordered to pay court expenses and legal fees and that the judgment be immediately enforceable. He explained that the defendant was his daughter and that he had given her the vehicle as assistance for her use and benefit. He said he had repeatedly asked her to transfer ownership into her name, but she refused, committed several traffic violations while driving the vehicle, and declined to pay them.
During the proceedings, the defendant denied possessing the vehicle and denied having any relationship with her father since 2023. She also stated that her father had stopped paying her maintenance from that date.
The plaintiff requested that the court administer a decisive oath to the defendant before ruling on the case. She subsequently swore that she had not received the disputed vehicle from the plaintiff and that it was not in her possession.
In its ruling, the court explained that a decisive oath may be requested by a litigant when they lack evidence to support their claim. It noted that such an oath is not direct evidence in a case but rather a supplementary legal mechanism that carries risks for the party relying on it when other evidence is unavailable.
The court stated that once the decisive oath is taken by the person to whom it is directed, the dispute is resolved on the matters covered by the oath.
The court noted that the plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to transfer ownership of the vehicle or, alternatively, return it after settling the traffic violations. It found that he relied on the decisive oath because the case file contained no evidence supporting his claim. The court granted his request for the oath, which the defendant took in the prescribed legal form. As a result, the court applied the legal effect of the oath, dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay the legal expenses.