A young man has filed a civil lawsuit against a friend, seeking the repayment of 700,000 Dirhams for a luxury Mercedes car sold to him and transferred into his name, which the friend has allegedly failed to pay.

The defendant has denied the allegations and accused the plaintiff of forgery, arguing that the Dubai courts lack jurisdiction over the matter as the incident occurred in another emirate, where he resides.

Following the court's examination of the case, it ruled that it did not have jurisdiction, noting that both the plaintiff and defendant reside in a different emirate.

The plaintiff stated that he and the defendant share a close friendship and that they mutually agreed on the purchase of the disputed vehicle.

He claimed that due to their strong relationship, he decided to transfer ownership to his friend based on a promise made by the latter to pay for the car at a later date.

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant has failed to fulfill his payment obligations despite multiple requests, causing him damage and resulting in unjust enrichment at his expense without legal grounds.

He presented evidence to support his claim, including a price evaluation of the car, a transfer certificate indicating it was originally owned by him, and documentation proving the transfer and registration of the vehicle in the defendant’s name, establishing that the plaintiff was the original owner.

The defendant appeared in court and confirmed his residence in another emirate.

He submitted a defense memorandum requesting that the court accept his challenge of forgery regarding the address provided by the plaintiff, which he claimed was his own address.

He contended that service of the case via telephone did not negate his grounds for challenging the forgery, asserting that the forgery was evident through official documents.

Additionally, the defendant demanded that the plaintiff be referred to the public prosecutor for legal action over alleged forgery of official documents, suggesting that the plaintiff should be tried in the criminal court to serve as a warning to other potential fraudsters.

The defendant further urged the court to rule that the Dubai courts lack jurisdiction over the dispute, as the documents related to their case were registered and notarized in another emirate, where the bill of sale for the car was also executed, and where both parties reside.

He requested that the court dismiss the claim entirely, arguing it constituted an attempt to circumvent an official and final sale contract and emphasizing that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to substantiate the claim or demonstrate a valid debt owed by the defendant.

The court’s ruling noted that in regard to the defendant’s claim of lack of local jurisdiction, Article 33 of Federal Law Decree No. 42 of 2022 concerning civil procedures specifies that jurisdiction lies with the court where the defendant resides, unless stated otherwise by law.

If the defendant does not have a residence in the state, the jurisdiction falls to the court in the area of his residence or workplace.

Furthermore, the court highlighted that each emirate has its own independent judiciary, except in matters referred to the federal judiciary.

The court in Dubai operates as an independent entity, which necessitates that all courts in the state adhere to their jurisdictional limitations without exceeding them.

The evidence indicated that the defendant's residence was in Sharjah based on the sale contract of the disputed vehicle, and there was no documentation showing that he resided in Dubai.

Therefore, the court deemed it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and upheld the jurisdictional objection raised by the defendant.