High Court blocks man’s bid to take car as ex-wife holds loan

TDT | Manama

Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com

A Bahraini man’s attempt to gain control over his vehicle was blocked by the courts, which ruled that his ex-wife’s name on the loan meant he could not take it across the border.

The High Civil Court of Appeal dismissed his case, in which he sought to compel his ex-wife to authorise the release of the vehicle registered in his name.

However, the loan used to purchase it remained under her name, lawyer Maryam Al Shaikh said.

According to Al Shaikh, the plaintiff, her client’s former husband, had purchased the vehicle under an arrangement between them.

To cover the cost, she took out a loan, while he agreed to pay the instalments.

Deposit

He had covered the deposit and kept up with the monthly payments.

After their divorce, she refused to visit the bank to sign off on an authorisation that would allow him to take the vehicle through border crossings.

In response, he filed a lawsuit, which the lower court rejected. He then appealed the ruling.

Judgment

The appeal court found that the original judgment had correctly examined the case and applied the law.

It determined that the reasoning behind the ruling was sound and that the decision addressed the grounds of appeal, which it upheld.

The court further noted that the appeal had no firm basis in law or fact.

Loan

A letter from the bank, obtained during the lower court proceedings, confirmed that the loan had not been repaid in full.

An attached payment schedule showed outstanding amounts and instalments yet to be paid.

It stated that a clearance certificate for the loan could only be issued once the debt had been settled.

Request

To obtain this, the bank required the customer to visit its service desk and make the request.

It also clarified that border-crossing authorisations could only be granted in person, with proof of identity.

As both parties acknowledged that the loan remained unpaid and that the appellant had, in his final submission, refused to accept the bank’s terms for transferring the loan to his name, the court ruled that his request had no legal foundation and dismissed the appeal.