A bank customer's legal battle ends in defeat as the UAE's Federal Supreme Court upholds a ruling favoring the bank in a Dh2.3 million cheque dispute. But was justice truly served?
The case began when the customer appealed against a decision to enforce a cheque for a personal loan, claiming the bank's actions were invalid. He argued that the loan was granted without adequate guarantees, despite his modest income, which he stated was less than Dh25,000 per month. This, he contended, violated a 1995 directive aimed at preventing citizens and residents from falling into excessive debt.
The customer's argument was initially accepted by the first instance court, which appointed an expert to review the case. However, the court's decision was more symbolic than substantial, as it later upheld the enforcement of the cheque. The customer, dissatisfied, took the case to the Court of Appeal, which sided with the lower court, leading to the final appeal at the Federal Supreme Court.
Here's where it gets controversial: the plaintiff asserted that the lower courts had overlooked his key defense—that the loan was granted in breach of regulations. He believed this rendered the courts' judgments invalid. But the Federal Supreme Court disagreed, setting a precedent for similar disputes. They clarified that the 1995 directive was designed to protect borrowers from taking on unaffordable loans, requiring banks to assess income and guarantees. The court asserted that the lower courts had acted reasonably, and the appeal was rejected.
The ruling raises questions about the balance between protecting borrowers and upholding contractual obligations. Should banks be held more accountable for responsible lending practices? Or is it the borrower's responsibility to ensure they can repay? Share your thoughts in the comments, and let's explore the complexities of this intriguing legal debate.
