admin 
Dubai Civil Court obligated an Asian to pay Dhs890,000 to another with five per cent annual interest after it had been proven that he received the money to buy a residential apartment in Dubai but he neither completed the transaction nor returned the money to the victim.
Earlier, a man filed a civil lawsuit in which he stated that he had given a man Dhs890,000 to purchase an apartment but the latter failed to fulfill the agreement and did not return the money.
The plaintiff based his claim on the defendant’s admission made when summoned to give his statement in which he stated that he had received the disputed funds.
The defendant stated in the police report that he returned the money, alleging that there were WhatsApp conversations that proved his statement.
He, however, neither submitted those conversations nor appeared to prove his defence or submit any documents showing that he returned the funds back to the plaintiff.
The court stated that according to legal principles, no person might seize another person’s money without a legitimate reason as this would constitute unjust enrichment.
Transferring money without legal justification would necessitate such money to be returned to its owner, especially if there was proof that the defendant received the money and there was no credible evidence of the return of the amount, it added.
The court explained that the defendant’s admission contained in the police report was a non-judicial admission that had legal validity and could be relied upon, noting that the lawsuit lacked any document indicating payment and consequently the defendant should be obligated to return the full amount claimed.
Legal advisor Dr. Alaa Nasr said the ruling reinforced the principle of unjust enrichment as one of the fundamental principles in the Civil Transactions Law, noting that any person who proved that he obtained money from others without a legal basis should be obligated to return it when he was unable to prove a legitimate reason for keeping it.
According to the law, a non-judicial admission, whether contained in police reports, correspondence or electronic conversations, could constitute effective evidence when supported by the circumstances of the case, he added.
The burden of proving payment falls on the debtor and that merely claiming to have returned the amount without providing clear evidence is not legally sufficient to deny the established debt, he said.
