How a simple phone mix-up in sending court summons saved a Bahraini man from BD7,000 debt

TDT | Manama

Email: mail@newsofbahrain.com

A Bahraini overturned a BD7,000 debt ruling after proving that a court summons had been sent to the wrong phone number, nearly costing him his case.

The High Civil Appeals Court ruled that the original lawsuit challenging the debt acknowledgment was flawed due to the notification error.

Defence lawyer Mohammed Al Manai, representing the defendant, explained that the plaintiff, a contractor, had filed the case claiming that he had met the defendant regarding work on two properties.

Deal

During their meeting, a third party entered the plaintiff’s office and struck a deal with the defendant to return a plot of land that had been taken from him.

They agreed on BD7,000 as payment for this, which the defendant handed directly to the third party, with the plaintiff having no involvement in the transaction.

The plaintiff said this agreement had taken place in his office and that the defendant later asked for a written record of the sum paid.

Receipt

He then provided a receipt in the defendant’s name. When the third party failed to return the land, the defendant demanded his money back.

The request was refused, leading him to file a complaint.

The plaintiff later stated that, to protect the third party from criminal charges, he had signed a debt acknowledgment in favour of the defendant, despite never having received the BD7,000 himself.

Witnesses

The court called witnesses, including the plaintiff’s two sons. They testified that the third party had agreed to handle land-related procedures with the Housing Ministry.

They said the agreement was struck outside their father’s office and that the defendant had paid the third party BD6,500 in two instalments via their father’s office.

Obligation

They added that their father had never received the money and had no obligation to repay it.

The plaintiff admitted to signing the acknowledgment, knowing the third party was unable to pay, fearing he himself could face legal trouble.

His lawyer, as a precaution, requested that the defendant take a decisive oath confirming that the BD7,000 debt arose from direct dealings between the two, rather than any arrangement concerning the Housing Ministry land.

Hearing

The defendant failed to attend the hearing, either in person or through legal representation.

The court rescheduled the oath-taking and ordered him to appear, but he did not. As a result, the court ruled that the debt acknowledgment was invalid and cleared the plaintiff of any liability.

The defendant appealed, arguing that he had not been properly notified because the summons had been sent to the wrong phone number.

Arrangement

He also contested the nature of the arrangement, saying it was not a commercial deal but a matter of creditor and guarantor, which the respondent’s witnesses had confirmed.

He expressed willingness to swear a revised oath, stating that the respondent had pledged to repay BD7,000 on behalf of the third party, signed an acknowledgment to that effect, and later confirmed repayment in instalments before a notary.

He insisted that neither the respondent nor the third party had settled the sum.

Notification

A report from the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) confirmed that the phone number used for notification belonged to someone else.

The court accepted the appeal and threw out the earlier ruling. Before deciding on the substance of the case, it ordered the appellant to swear the decisive oath in person.

He did so, after which the court ruled to dismiss the original lawsuit.