Case studiesCivil & money claims2026
Bank transfers were not gifts: repayment award upheld on appeal
Al Faisal came in at the appeal: the other side had challenged a judgment ordering repayment of money our client sent by dozens of bank transfers, and we filed the reply. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal about six weeks after we were instructed and upheld the award unchanged, with the appeal costs on the appellant.
Handled by Faysel Al-Mohannadi
The judgment
- Result
- The other side's appeal rejected. The first-instance award of the debt and compensation for delay, most of the total claimed, upheld unchanged. Costs of both instances on the other side.
- Court
- Court of Appeal (civil chamber), on appeal from the Civil Court
- Time
- About six weeks, from our instruction to the appeal judgment
- What was at stake
- An award of between half a million and a million riyals, under appeal
- Our client
- An individual who had sent the money, the respondent to the appeal
The case
Over a period, at the other side's request, our client made dozens of bank transfers to the other side, on the understanding that the money would be paid back. The total was between half a million and a million riyals. The other side did not repay and stopped answering demands.
In 2025, before Al Faisal was instructed, our client sued for the money and for compensation for the delay. The court appointed an accounting expert, who traced the transfers from the bank statements. The other side admitted receiving the money but said it was a gift. The court ordered payment of the debt and compensation, most of the total claimed.
In 2026 the other side appealed.
What was at stake
There was no written loan agreement. The appeal argued that a bank transfer proves only that money changed hands, not that it was lent, and that the claimant had to prove a loan. It said a loan above a set amount can be proved only in writing, so the transfers and the chats were not enough (Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, Art. 260(1)). It said money passing between people who know each other is presumed a gift or help, and that any doubt favours the debtor. It also attacked the compensation, the way the chats had been read, and an oath it said the court had relied on.
If the appeal succeeded, the award could fall, and with it our client's route to the money.
What we did
Filed the reply within days.We were instructed only after the appeal was lodged; the first instance, expert included, ran before we came in. Our reply, filed online, took the grounds of appeal in order.
Put the burden of proof on the gift.The other side admitted receiving the money. Whoever claims something against the apparent must prove it, so the gift was the other side's to prove (Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, Art. 211; Court of Cassation ruling No. 236 of 2011).
Answered "no writing" with the record.We relied on the admission of receipt, the written chats in which the other side agreed to a repayment and settlement schedule, and the expert's tracing of the transfers. Drawing presumptions from such circumstances is for the judge (same law, Art. 299), and weighing the evidence is for the trial court (Court of Cassation ruling No. 16 of 2013).
Took the remaining grounds one by one.The supplementary oath appeared only in the judgment's account of the proceedings; the court had not relied on it. A settlement offer in the chats had not been treated as a judicial admission: the judgment rested on the expert and the chats as a whole. Compensation for delay was due, because the money was not paid after demand (Civil Code Art. 268).
What the court held
The Court of Appeal found the first-instance reasons sound and in line with the facts and the law, and adopted them as its own. An appeal court decides within the limits of what is appealed and may adopt the reasons of the judgment below (Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, Art. 169). It held that the first-instance judgment had already answered the grounds of appeal.
Those reasons rested on the accounting expert's findings and on the chats read as a whole. The expert traced the transfers, found no document showing either a loan or a gift, and found that their regular, repeated pattern pointed to a financial obligation based on personal trust. Where a debtor does not pay a sum of money after notice, the court may award compensation for the harm caused (Civil Code Art. 268).
The court rejected the appeal, upheld the judgment and put the appeal costs on the appellant (Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, Arts. 131 and 177).
Why this result matters
A bank transfer shows that money moved, not why. Once the person who received it admitted receipt and called it a gift, the gift had to be proved, and the expert's tracing and the written chats kept the award in place on appeal.
If you are in a similar position
- If you send money that is meant to be repaid, keep your bank statements and every message about repayment. Here, they helped prove the debt.
- Ask for repayment in writing, and keep proof that you did. Compensation for delay can turn on a demand having been made.
- Get a short written acknowledgment of the debt early. Settlement offers made in chats are likely to be attacked later.
Who handled it
Faysel Al-Mohannadilawyer admitted before the Court of Cassation
Someone says the money you sent was a gift? Bring your bank statements, the messages about repayment and any court papers you have.