A woman filed a lawsuit in the Abu Dhabi Primary Court, demanding that her ex-husband refund 133,800 dirhams, the amount of debts she paid on his behalf to save him from prison, as well as traffic fines he incurred and other expenses. She indicated that her ex-husband refused to repay the amount after their separation. The court ruled that the defendant must repay 118,800 dirhams.
In her lawsuit, she mentioned that her ex-husband obtained those amounts from her during their marriage, as he insisted that she pay the debts, promising to refund her afterward. However, he failed to repay her and divorced her to evade his obligations. She detailed that she paid 90,000 dirhams of her ex-husband's debts that led to his imprisonment, in addition to 28,800 dirhams for traffic violations he committed with her car, which she had given to him, as well as other amounts she had previously settled on his behalf.
During the trial at the first instance court, the woman submitted a document binder containing invoices proving her partial payments of those claims and took an oath as requested by the court to affirm the amounts she had paid related to her ex-husband's debt, traffic fines, and other claims. The first instance court ruled that the defendant must pay the plaintiff 118,800 dirhams, while rejecting her other requests. The defendant was dissatisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal, providing a memorandum indicating that the ruling infringed on his rights, claiming that the court based the plaintiff's claim on her sworn testimony and requested the annulment of the first instance ruling and dismissal of the lawsuit.
For its part, the court clarified in its ruling that the appeal was filed within the specified time for appeals; however, it lacked the documents proving that the set security deposit for reconsidering these cases had been deposited. It noted that the decision on simple claims mandates the appellant to pay a security deposit of 1,000 dirhams, pointing out that the appellant failed to pay the deposit, thus necessitating the rejection of the appeal due to the absence of the required security deposit. The court ruled not to accept the appeal and upheld the first instance court's ruling.
