Eastern Province: A marriage promise turned into a legal dispute involving bank loans and other sums exceeding Dh1 million after a man persuaded a woman with whom he had a personal relationship to take out two loans for his benefit, in addition to giving him money. He promised to pay the instalments and return the funds but later stopped meeting his obligations, leaving her to service the bank debts herself.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Court of First Instance’s ruling ordering the man to pay the woman Dh989,968, in addition to Dh100,000 in compensation for the damage she suffered. The total award was therefore about Dh1.09 million, in addition to legal interest.
WhatsApp messages exchanged between the pair showed the man acknowledging that he had received money from the woman. The Court of Appeal rejected his argument that he was not responsible for the loans.
According to a report by the expert committee appointed by the court, the dispute arose from a personal relationship based on a promise of marriage, although no contract had been concluded between the parties.
During the relationship, the man asked the woman to lend him money and later persuaded her to obtain bank financing in her name for his benefit, promising to cover the monthly instalments and repay the amounts he received.
Court documents showed that the woman said she transferred a total of Dh341,010 to the man’s account. She said he then persuaded her to obtain two bank loans.
The first loan was for Dh601,000, with bank profits of Dh94,828, bringing the total amount repayable to Dh695,828. It was spread over 48 monthly instalments from July 2023 to June 2027.
The second loan was for Dh46,450, with bank profits of Dh7,332, bringing the total repayable to about Dh53,783. It was also spread over 48 monthly instalments, from October 2023 to September 2027.
In her lawsuit, the woman said the man had undertaken to pay the bank instalments and acknowledged the amounts he owed in WhatsApp messages. The exchanges included questions from him about details of the debt and an acknowledgement of it without objection.
However, he made payments only for a limited period, paying approximately Dh100,000 before stopping the instalments and failing to return the remaining amounts.
The woman said she was then forced to make the bank payments from her own funds to avoid default and the potential financial and legal consequences. She continued to service the loans despite maintaining that she had obtained them for the man’s benefit and at his request.
Following his failure to meet his obligations, she filed a civil lawsuit seeking Dh1,044,170, as well as Dh100,000 in compensation for material and moral damages. She also sought legal interest at 12 per cent a year from the date the case was filed until full payment.
The court was presented with evidence including bank financing applications and WhatsApp conversations concerning the amounts the man received and the nature of the financial obligations between the parties.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a committee comprising an accounting expert and a banking expert to examine the documents, bank transfers and electronic conversations, and determine the nature of the parties’ financial relationship and the amounts due.
The experts concluded that the relationship was personal and based on a promise of marriage, and that no contracts had been concluded between the pair.
However, the report found that WhatsApp messages included an acknowledgement by the man that he had obtained a loan from the woman totalling Dh981,509, according to the details contained in the report.
The examination also identified bank transfers between the parties, including Dh306,000 transferred by the woman to the man and Dh93,702 transferred by him to her. It also established that the woman had obtained two bank loans of Dh601,000 and Dh46,450.
After examining the documents and settling the accounts between the parties, the expert committee concluded that the man owed the woman Dh989,968.
The committee did not include the Dh306,000 transfer in its calculations because it was made before the date of the WhatsApp message on which the experts relied when determining the financial obligations.
Based on the expert report and other evidence, the Court of First Instance ruled last May that the man must pay the woman Dh989,968, with legal interest of 5 per cent from February 19, 2026, the date the lawsuit was filed.
It also awarded her Dh100,000 in compensation, with legal interest on that amount from the date the judgment becomes final, as well as Dh1,000 in lawyers’ fees. The court rejected all other claims.
The man appealed the ruling, seeking to have it overturned and the case dismissed. He argued that the Court of First Instance had relied on what he described as a flawed expert report without adequately addressing his objections.
He maintained that there was no proof he had asked the woman to take out the two bank loans on his behalf or that he had received the loan proceeds.
He argued that the documents showed the woman had obtained the financing in her own name and for her own benefit, and claimed the WhatsApp messages indicated that the loans were hers and that his role was limited to helping her with repayments.
He also challenged the compensation award, arguing that there was no proof he had received the loan amounts or caused damage that warranted compensation.
The woman filed a cross-appeal seeking to add Dh306,000 to the amount awarded. She said the money had been transferred from her bank account to the man’s account and that he had previously acknowledged borrowing from her without proving that he had repaid it.
After considering both appeals, the Court of Appeal found that the original judgment was based on sufficient factual and legal grounds.
It said the arguments raised by the man had already been addressed by the Court of First Instance and that he had presented nothing that would alter its findings.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding it sound in its application of the law, reasoning and justification, and rejected the man’s appeal.
It also rejected the woman’s cross-appeal seeking the addition of Dh306,000, finding insufficient evidence to overturn the lower court’s conclusion concerning that amount.
Both appeals were therefore dismissed and the original judgment upheld. Each party was ordered to pay the fees and expenses associated with their respective appeal, and both security deposits were confiscated.
The dispute concluded before the Court of Appeal with the man required to pay approximately Dh1.09 million, comprising the principal award and compensation, in addition to applicable legal interest. Electronic conversations, bank transfers and the expert report were central to determining the financial obligations arising from the parties’ personal relationship.