Court ruling finds she was only a nominal owner, with the property belonging to the partners who financed its purchase.
According to court records, the woman claimed that the property was registered under her name and that she had issued the defendant a general power of attorney to handle her affairs. She alleged that he abused this authority by transferring ownership of the property to himself without her knowledge or approval.
The defendant, represented by lawyer Abdullah Bin Hatem of Abdullah Mohammed Rasul & Partners Lawyers & Legal Consultants, denied the claims, arguing that the plaintiff was not the beneficial owner of the property and that her name appeared on the title only as part of a nominee arrangement.
He told the court that the actual ownership belonged to a group of partners, including the plaintiff’s husband, who had jointly funded the purchase and acquisition of the property. The transfer, he argued, was carried out to restore ownership to one of the legitimate stakeholders.
To support his defence, the defendant submitted a concealed partnership agreement that identified the individuals who were the property’s actual owners. He also cited the outcome of an earlier criminal case, in which he was acquitted of allegations including embezzlement and unlawful appropriation, while the related civil claim was dismissed.
Court records showed that during the criminal proceedings, the plaintiff acknowledged that her husband had arranged for the property to be registered in her name and that she had not contributed any personal funds towards its purchase.
In its ruling, the court stated that final criminal judgments are binding on civil courts in relation to facts conclusively established in both cases. It noted that the criminal court had already reviewed the property transfer and the allegations of misuse of the power of attorney, and found no criminal or civil liability on the part of the defendant.
The criminal court also determined that the transfer was completed with the consent of the property’s rightful owners and found no evidence of fraud or unlawful conduct.
The court also dismissed the plaintiff’s argument that the transfer breached legal restrictions preventing agents from purchasing properties they are entrusted to sell. It ruled that such protections apply to genuine property owners and were not applicable in this case, as the plaintiff did not hold a beneficial ownership interest in the asset.
After reviewing the partnership agreement, the plaintiff’s own statements and testimony from other partners, the court concluded that she was the registered owner only in name and had no financial interest in the property. It found that the defendant was among the property’s rightful owners and that the transfer was intended to return ownership to its legitimate holder.
The court further ruled that the plaintiff did not have the required legal standing to pursue the claim, stating that cancelling the transfer would not restore any legitimate right but would instead grant her ownership of a property in which she held no actual interest.
Regarding the plaintiff’s husband, who was identified as one of the partners, the court said any claims relating to his rights should be addressed through partnership proceedings, including the settlement of accounts, enforcement of partnership rights or dissolution of the partnership. Such matters, it added, did not provide the plaintiff with grounds to seek cancellation of the property transfer.
Addressing the plaintiff’s husband’s role as a partner in the concealed partnership agreement, the court said any dispute concerning his rights must be pursued through partnership-related proceedings, including the settlement of accounts between partners, enforcement of partnership rights or liquidation of the partnership.
The court ruled that such matters did not grant the plaintiff, who was not a party to the partnership agreement and had no beneficial ownership interest in the property, the legal right to challenge the transfer or seek restoration of the property in her name.
Finding that the lawsuit had no legal basis, the court dismissed both the plaintiff’s primary and alternative claims and ordered her to bear the court costs along with Dh1,000 in legal fees.
