Dubai: The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a man seeking to recover AED1.137 million from a woman whom he claimed had promised to marry him.
The claimant said he had transferred the money to the woman in instalments for specific personal purposes in preparation for their marriage, before she later changed her mind and rejected his proposal.
However, the court concluded that the evidence submitted did not prove the funds were transferred for that purpose. It also found that correspondence and conversations between the two parties contained indications that the transfers were intended as gifts or assistance.
According to court documents, the claimant demanded that the woman return sums he said he had transferred to her at different times for what he described as a planned marriage project. He stated that he had formally proposed to her through her family but was later surprised by her rejection.
He argued that the money was not given as a gift, nor in exchange for work, services or any contractual obligation owed to the defendant. Rather, he said it had been provided to achieve a specific objective and that, since the marriage did not take place, the basis for her retaining the money no longer existed.
To support his claim, the plaintiff submitted a consulting accounting report showing that he had transferred various amounts to the defendant over a period exceeding two and a half years. However, the court noted that the bank statements did not indicate the purpose or nature of those transfers.
The court explained that merely proving money was transferred from one party to another is not, in itself, sufficient to justify repayment. A claimant seeking recovery on the basis of unjust enrichment must prove both the transfer of funds and the absence of a legitimate reason for the recipient to retain them.
It further stated that the general legal presumption is that a bank transfer is made to settle an existing debt or obligation. Therefore, anyone claiming otherwise bears the burden of proving the true purpose of the transfer. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to do so.
The court also noted that the plaintiff acknowledged in his statement of claim that he had transferred the money before formally proposing through the woman’s family. He further admitted to the court-appointed expert that some of the amounts had been given as loans, while the defendant argued that a working relationship existed between them.
According to the judgment, these facts, combined with messages and conversations between the parties referring to care, assistance and gifts, weakened the plaintiff’s argument that all of the transferred funds were linked to a marriage arrangement or were subject to repayment.
The court added that the case file did not contain credible evidence of an explicit agreement regarding marriage, nor any obligation requiring the defendant to return the money she received.
The plaintiff also sought to recover an additional AED700,000, which he claimed to have handed to the defendant in cash. He requested permission to prove the alleged payment through witness testimony.
The court rejected this request, explaining that the law of evidence requires transactions valued at more than AED50,000, or those of unspecified value, to be proven in writing. Witness testimony is generally not admissible in such cases unless otherwise provided for by law or agreement.
The court ultimately found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover either the bank transfers or the alleged cash payment.
Accordingly, it ruled to dismiss the lawsuit.