[ad_1]
An Abu Dhabi woman lost a 100,000 dirham lawsuit against her former fiancé. She demanded compensation for the mental damage suffered by the man who refused to return her dog.
The Arab woman told the Abu Dhabi court in the first instance that the man had asked her to marry him, but the engagement was cancelled due to a misunderstanding.
She claimed that she adopted the dog named “La Prada” from an animal care center. She later gave the dog to her fiancé at the time and asked them to stay with him while they were still in a relationship.
She said she thought it would be a family pet because this man also likes animals.
According to the lawsuit, when their courtship ended, the man kept the dog and refused to return it to the woman-with intent to harass her.
The woman said that she repeatedly asked the man to return her dog, but he refused.
She attached the details of the phone conversation they requested for her pet, as well as a copy of the certificate issued by the Animal Care Center.
She said she loved her dog, and the man’s refusal to return it caused her psychological harm.
She asked the court to order the man to return it to her and compensate her for 100,000 dirhams of mental damage.
The man denied the woman’s statement, stressing that she had handed over the dog and signed the ownership transfer document.
After hearing the opinions of both parties, the court decided to dismiss the woman’s lawsuit and asked her to pay the man’s legal expenses.
In its ruling, the court stated that according to the “Civil and Commercial Evidence Law”, “the plaintiff must prove its rights, and the defendant must deny it”, and pointed out that what can be proved from the documents submitted by the defendant is that the plaintiff signed a statement stating that The ownership was transferred from her name to his name.
Please also read:
The court stated that the defendant subsequently became the owner of the dog (the subject of the dispute) and filed a lawsuit without a document worthy of rejection.
The judge said that the complainant insisted on obtaining a certificate from the animal care center that the dog was registered in her name, which did not change anything.
[ad_2]
Source link