In the Session Held at Al Dhafra Court of First Instance

On 3 Dhul Hijjah 1447 H, corresponding to 20/05/2026 AD, presided over by the Judge

The case number 21-2026-Simple Civil-M-R-B-Z F Civil (Simple) Main Headquarters, filed on 05/05/2026, was considered.

Subject

Financial Claim

After hearing the arguments, reviewing the documents, and deliberation,

The following judgment was issued:

The facts of the case are summarized as the plaintiff initiating this lawsuit through a statement of claim filed with the court clerk on 05/05/2026 and legally served on the defendant, seeking a judgment ordering the defendant to pay a total sum of AED 22,071, plus fees and expenses. The basis of the claim is that an agreement was made between the plaintiff and the defendant to renew the license of a company and to share in its ownership, whereby the plaintiff would bear the costs and expenses of renewing the license. However, after he incurred the expenses amounting to AED 22,071, the defendant denied the agreement and refused to fulfill his obligation to make the plaintiff a partner in the license. The plaintiff requested that the decisive oath be administered to the defendant in the following terms: “I swear by Almighty God that I did not agree with the plaintiff to include him as a partner with me in the commercial license of the company... in exchange for his bearing or paying the expenses and fees for renewing the license, and I did not promise to make him a partner in the license after his expenditure or payment, and that the amounts he paid were without agreement. God is witness to what I say.” The plaintiff filed his lawsuit seeking judgment on his claims, supported by documents in the form of handwritten receipts of expenses and a referral order.

During the preparatory phase, as shown in its minutes via visual and audio communication technology and remote hearing attendance systems (Webex), the session was held. The plaintiff attended and submitted, via email, a statement of claim containing the wording of the oath. The defendant attended and submitted a responsive memorandum summarizing that the plaintiff's statements were unsubstantiated and he did not provide any contract, transfer, correspondence, or trade license. The license is a sole proprietorship owned by the defendant alone, supported by a copy of the expired license. Upon questioning the plaintiff about the agreement between the parties and the invoices and expenses mentioned in the statement of claim, he replied that there was no written contract. He added that he was imprisoned in another case, and when his office lease expired, the office contents were moved to a warehouse belonging to the lessor, leading to the damage of some files, including the invoices for this case. He requested time to search for the invoices and submit a follow-up memorandum. Upon reviewing the copy of the ID attached to the defendant's case file, it was found that the name listed was... and he submitted a new ID today showing the name is... When asked about this, he stated that upon renewing his ID, the name was amended according to his passport by adding the name “...” instead of “...”. The plaintiff then submitted via WhatsApp a follow-up memorandum and documents titled receipt voucher issued in 2018, stating that he paid these invoices in 2018 for a total amount of 14,896. As for the other expenses and the lease contract, he could not find them as he was a tenant of a person of Indian nationality and could not reach him to provide proof of the rent value paid. He adhered to the submitted memorandum. The defendant attended and stated that he adheres to the memorandum submitted in the previous session regarding the receipts submitted today, noting their date is in 2018, which is before the license expired, and this is the amount he paid as mentioned.

Court Proceedings and Reasoning

When the supervising judge referred the case to the court, and in the session of 20/05/2026 via remote visual communication, the plaintiff and defendant attended. Therefore, the judgment is deemed to be in their presence in accordance with Article 54/1 of the Civil Procedure Law. The parties adhered to their requests and requested that the case be reserved for judgment. The court decided, before ruling on the merits, to administer the decisive oath requested by the plaintiff to the defendant, after amending it to the following wording: “I swear by Almighty God that I did not agree with the plaintiff to include him as a partner with me in the commercial license of the company... in exchange for his bearing or paying the expenses and fees for renewing the license, and I did not promise to make him a partner in the license after his payment, and that the amounts he paid, totaling AED 22,071, were without agreement. God is witness to what I say.” When presented to the defendant, he stated that he did not wish to swear and requested to return the oath to the plaintiff. The court, based on the defendant's request, decided to return the decisive oath to the plaintiff after amending it to the following wording: “I swear by Almighty God that I agreed with the defendant to include me as a partner with him in the commercial license of the company... in exchange for my bearing and paying the expenses and fees for renewing the license, and he promised to make me a partner in the license after my payment, and that the amounts I paid, totaling AED 22,071, were based on an agreement with him. God is witness to what I say.” When presented to the plaintiff, he stated he had no objection to swearing the decisive oath, and he swore it. He added that the agreement was for the defendant to bear half the expenses after the plaintiff paid them, but he did not comply. The parties requested that the case be reserved for judgment, and the court reserved the case for judgment in today's session.

Regarding the subject of the lawsuit and the plaintiff's final claims, which are the basis for consideration (Abu Dhabi Cassation, Appeal No. 1174, session of 22/2/2011), which include ordering the defendant to pay the amount of AED 22,071, plus fees and expenses.

It is established in case law that the trial court has the authority to scrutinize the evidence and documents submitted and to determine the true facts, including evaluating an expert's report as an element of evidence, provided it is satisfied with the soundness of its bases and the correctness of its conclusions. The court may adopt it in whole or in part, as its assessment is subject to the judge's supervision of the soundness of its work and the results reached (Abu Dhabi Commercial Cassation, Appeal No. 730 of 2019, session of 28/8/2019). It is also established by Article 1 of the Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions that the plaintiff must prove his right, and the defendant must deny it. It is established in case law that the burden of proving a right falls upon the one who asserts it. It is also established, according to Article (112) of the Civil Transactions Law, that the means of proving a right are writing, testimony, circumstantial evidence, inspection, expertise, acknowledgment, and the oath. It is also understood from the provisions of Articles 93, 94/1, and 98 of the same law that the decisive oath is administered by a litigant to his opponent when he lacks evidence for his claim or a fact therein. It is not evidence presented by the litigant but an alternative method, not without risk, to which the plaintiff resorts when he lacks evidence for his claim. When the decisive oath is administered to a litigant, this litigant has only one of two options: to swear the oath or to return it to the one who administered it. If he neither swears nor returns it, he is considered to have recanted and lost his case. The Court of Cassation has held that the decisive oath belongs to the litigant, not the judge, and the judge must grant a request to administer it if its conditions are met, unless it appears that the requesting party is being abusive in this request. It may not be administered regarding a matter contrary to public order or morals, and swearing it resolves the dispute on which it was sworn and its content becomes binding on the judge (Appeal No. 289 for the year 22 judicial, session of 15/1/2003).

Since the plaintiff's claim is to compel the defendant to pay AED 22,071 as a result of the defendant's breach of his contractual obligations by not making him a partner in the company after he paid all the due fees and expenses, and since the plaintiff consented to prove the facts of the lawsuit through the defendant's conscience, and since the administration of the decisive oath is considered an implicit waiver of other means of proof regarding the fact for which the oath was requested, and since the decisive oath administered in the case has met its legally prescribed conditions of validity, and there was no abuse or violation of the law or public order, the court accepted its administration after amending it to be consistent with the facts of the case. Its content is considered binding evidence for the judge in favor of the one who swore it, and its content is evidence against the one who requested it because the decisive oath is a judgment for the litigant if sworn, and a judgment against him if he recants, in favor of the one who requested it if his opponent recants or swears it after it is returned to him. Therefore, the court concludes by ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of AED 22,071, as will be stated in the operative part of the judgment.

Regarding the expenses, the court orders the defendant to bear them in accordance with Article 133 of the Civil Procedure Law.

For these reasons, the Court has ruled:

To order the defendant to pay the plaintiff an amount of AED 22,071 and the expenses.