Below is a basics-focused, exam-ready explanation. I have used the current UAE Civil Transactions Law effective from 1 June 2026, while clearly identifying older cases that were decided under the former legal framework. No external links are included.

CIVIL LAW AND UAE: RESTITUTION REMEDIES BASICS

1. Introduction

Restitution is a civil remedy designed primarily to restore money, property, benefits, or advantages that a person has received without sufficient legal justification.

The basic idea is:

A person should not retain another person's property or an unjustified benefit when the law requires it to be returned.

Restitution is different from ordinary damages.

Damages primarily compensate the claimant for loss.

Restitution primarily restores a benefit or property received by the defendant.

Recovery refers more broadly to obtaining back money, property, or value to which the claimant is legally entitled.

Restitution can therefore arise in cases involving:

undue payments;

unjust enrichment;

invalid contracts;

cancellation of contracts;

wrongful possession;

mistaken payments;

fraud;

misappropriation;

failure of contractual consideration;

recovery of property and its benefits.

2. Current UAE Legal Position

A major point for current UAE civil-law study is that Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law came into force on 1 June 2026, replacing the former Federal Law No. 5 of 1985.

The new Code expressly places unjust enrichment and receipt of the undue under the chapter concerning beneficial acts.

The principal provisions include:

Article 274 – Unjust Enrichment

Article 275 – Receipt of the Undue

Article 276 – Circumstances concerning recovery of undue performance

related provisions concerning good faith, bad faith and other consequences.

The new Article 274 provides, in substance, that a person may not take another's property without lawful ground and, if property is taken, it must be returned together with legally relevant benefits and accretions.

This creates a clear statutory foundation for basic restitutionary remedies.

3. Meaning of Restitution

Restitution means restoring what was received.

For example:

A accidentally transfers AED 100,000 to B.

If B has no legal entitlement to the money, B may have to return it.

The remedy can therefore be expressed as:

Unjustified receipt → Restoration

The restoration may involve:

the original property;

equivalent property;

monetary value;

benefits or accretions;

other appropriate restitutionary relief.

4. Main Objectives of Restitution

Restitution serves several purposes.

4.1 Restoration

To return property or money to the person entitled to it.

4.2 Prevention of unjust enrichment

To prevent one person from retaining an unjustified benefit at another's expense.

4.3 Reversal of failed transactions

To restore parties where a transaction has been validly cancelled or otherwise loses its legal basis.

4.4 Protection of property rights

To allow recovery of property wrongfully possessed.

4.5 Correction of mistaken payments

To return money or property transferred when it was not actually due.

5. Restitution and Damages – Difference

This is one of the most important examination distinctions.

Example

A wrongfully takes B's car.

Restitution: Return the car.

Damages: Compensation for legally recoverable loss caused by the wrongful taking.

Depending on the circumstances, both forms of relief may be available without producing double recovery.

6. Article 274 – Unjust Enrichment

Article 274 of the current Civil Transactions Law is the starting point for basic restitution.

It provides, in substance:

No person may take another person's property without lawful ground.

If property is taken:

It must be returned.

If the property no longer exists:

Its equivalent or value may have to be restored, subject to the statutory rules.

The provision also addresses benefits and accretions associated with the property.

7. Basic Elements of Unjust Enrichment

A basic unjust-enrichment analysis involves four questions.

7.1 Was the defendant enriched?

The defendant may have received:

money;

property;

services;

financial advantage;

economic benefit.

7.2 Did the claimant have a corresponding legal or economic entitlement?

The claimant must establish why the benefit belongs to them or why the defendant has no right to retain it.

7.3 Was there a lawful basis?

The court asks:

Why did the defendant receive the benefit?

Possible lawful bases include:

contract;

valid gift;

sale;

loan;

court order;

statute;

valid settlement.

If a lawful basis exists, restitution may not be available merely because the defendant became richer.

7.4 Is restoration legally appropriate?

The court must determine:

what must be returned;

whether the original property exists;

whether its equivalent/value should be paid;

whether benefits must also be accounted for.

8. Article 275 – Receipt of the Undue

Article 275 concerns receipt of something by way of performance that was not actually due.

The basic rule is:

A person who receives an undue performance must restore it.

If the thing remains:

Return the thing.

If it no longer exists:

Return its equivalent or value, subject to the applicable provisions.

9. Examples of Undue Payment

Example 1 – Overpayment

A owes B AED 50,000.

A accidentally pays AED 70,000.

The additional AED 20,000 may be recoverable.

Example 2 – Duplicate payment

A pays B AED 100,000 twice.

The second payment may constitute an undue payment.

Example 3 – Wrong bank account

A intends to pay C but accidentally pays B.

If B has no legal entitlement, recovery may be sought.

Example 4 – Payment after obligation ended

A pays a debt that had already been legally discharged.

The recovery provisions concerning undue performance may become relevant.

10. Article 276 – When Recovery Can Arise

The current law recognises circumstances where performance can be recovered because:

the legal cause for the obligation never existed;

the legal cause subsequently ceased;

payment was made before the relevant term in circumstances covered by the law.

Therefore, restitution is not limited to arithmetic mistakes.

It can also arise because:

The legal basis for the payment never existed or later disappeared.

11. Restitution Following Cancellation of a Contract

Restitution can arise after a contract is legally cancelled or terminated where the applicable law requires restoration.

The general structure is:

Contract

↓

Performance

↓

Lawful termination/cancellation

↓

Restoration of exchanged performances

For example:

A pays B AED 1 million.

B transfers property.

The contract is subsequently cancelled under the applicable legal rules.

The parties may have to restore what they received.

The precise remedy depends upon:

the type of termination;

the reason for cancellation;

the contract;

statutory provisions;

whether performance can be returned.

12. Restitution in Kind

The preferred remedy may be to return the original thing.

Example:

A wrongfully takes B's machine.

If the machine remains identifiable and recoverable:

Return the machine.

This is known as restoration or restitution in kind.

It is different from simply paying monetary damages.

13. Restitution of Equivalent or Value

Sometimes the original property cannot be returned.

For example:

it was destroyed;

it was consumed;

it was sold;

it cannot be identified;

it no longer exists.

The legal framework may then require:

Equivalent property

or

Monetary value.

This is especially important under Article 274 for property acquired without a legal basis.

14. Recovery of Benefits and Accretions

Restitution may extend beyond the original asset.

Suppose:

A owns a property.

B wrongfully possesses it and receives rental income.

The recovery question may involve:

the property itself;

rental benefits;

other legally recoverable accretions.

The purpose is to prevent the wrongful possessor from retaining benefits generated from another person's property.

15. Good Faith and Bad Faith

The recipient's state of knowledge can affect the restitutionary consequences.

Good-faith recipient

A person who honestly believes that they are entitled to the property may receive certain protections under the applicable rules.

Bad-faith recipient

A person who knows that the property is not theirs may face broader restitutionary consequences.

For example:

B knows that AED 100,000 was accidentally transferred to B but deliberately keeps and spends it.

B's position is fundamentally different from someone who honestly believed that the payment was owed.

16. Restitution and Change of Position

Change of position can become important particularly in mistaken-payment cases.

Example:

A accidentally transfers AED 100,000 to B.

B honestly believes the money belongs to B and, before learning of the mistake, spends it in circumstances that materially change B's position.

The court may need to consider:

B's good faith;

when B became aware of the mistake;

what happened to the money;

the applicable statutory rules.

The principle was considered in Dagny v Dag & Company International Limited [2011] DIFC CFI 007.

17. Restitution and Contract

A valid contract is an important limitation.

Suppose:

A pays B AED 1 million under a valid contract.

B is contractually entitled to receive the AED 1 million.

A cannot ordinarily say:

“B has been enriched, therefore B must return it as unjust enrichment.”

The enrichment has a lawful contractual basis.

Therefore:

Unjust enrichment is not normally a substitute for a valid contractual bargain.

This principle was strongly illustrated by DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited v Youssef Issa Ward [2015] DIFC CA 006.

18. Case Law 1 – DAMAC Park Towers v Ward [2015] DIFC CA 006

This is a leading restitution case in the UAE's wider judicial environment.

The claimant sought recovery of money paid under a property reservation agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that restitution based on unjust enrichment requires more than enrichment.

The court explained the concept through two elements:

the defendant must have been enriched; and

the enrichment must be affected by an unjust factor.

Although DAMAC had received the claimant's money, the payments were made voluntarily under a contractual arrangement that entitled DAMAC to receive and retain them.

Principle

Enrichment alone does not establish restitution. There must be a legally relevant unjust basis for the enrichment.

Exam importance

This case is excellent for the proposition:

Enrichment ≠ automatically unjust enrichment.

19. Case Law 2 – Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others [2019] DIFC CFI 054

This case considered unjust enrichment under the former UAE Civil Code.

The court discussed the former Articles 318–320 and explained that:

property cannot be taken without lawful cause;

property acquired without a legal disposition may have to be returned;

property delivered under a mistaken belief that it was owed may be recoverable.

The judgment also considered Article 324 concerning property taken without a claim of right and its benefits or yield.

Principle

Restitutionary recovery requires a legally recognised entitlement to the property or benefit being claimed.

Exam importance

This case connects traditional UAE Civil Code restitutionary principles with modern commercial disputes.

20. Case Law 3 – Basin Supply Corporation v Rouge LLC & Claude Barret [2018] DIFC CFI 057

The claimant argued that money advanced as a loan should be recoverable through restitution if the contractual basis for repayment was ineffective.

The court referred to DAMAC Park Towers v Ward and the requirement for enrichment plus an unjust factor.

The case discussed possible unjust factors including:

mistake;

total failure of consideration;

void contract.

Principle

Where the contractual basis for a transfer fails, restitution may become an alternative route for recovery, but the claimant must establish the necessary restitutionary elements.

Exam importance

It demonstrates the relationship between:

contractual recovery → failed legal basis → restitution.

21. Case Law 4 – Dagny v Dag & Company International Limited [2011] DIFC CFI 007

This case involved repayment of money allegedly transferred by mistake.

The court considered restitutionary principles and the defence of change of position.

Principle

A recipient's good faith and subsequent change of position can be relevant to whether and to what extent restitution should be ordered.

Exam importance

Use this case for:

mistaken payments;

good faith;

change of position;

limits on recovery.

22. Case Law 5 – Youssef Issa Ward v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited [2014] DIFC CFI 001

At first instance, the DIFC Court found that the defendant's termination of the reservation arrangement was wrongful and ordered repayment of approximately AED 2.626 million.

The court treated the amount retained by DAMAC as subject to restitution following the wrongful termination.

However, this decision was subsequently overturned by the DIFC Court of Appeal in DAMAC Park Towers v Ward [2015] DIFC CA 006.

Principle

This case is useful for understanding how a first-instance restitution order can be reconsidered on appeal when the underlying contractual entitlement is different from what the trial court initially concluded.

Exam caution

Always cite the Court of Appeal decision for the final appellate position.

23. Case Law 6 – Amit Dattani and Others v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited [2012] DIFC CFI 034

The case concerned termination of property-related contractual arrangements.

The court considered Article 90 of the DIFC Contract Law, which expressly dealt with restitution following contractual termination.

The court held that the claimants could rely on the restitution mechanism for sums they had paid.

Principle

Where applicable contractual termination provisions trigger restitution, the party may recover what it supplied, subject to reciprocal restoration and the statutory requirements.

Exam importance

Use this case for:

contractual restitution;

termination;

restoration of payments.

24. Case Law 7 – Salem Dwela v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited [2020] DIFC CA 009

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered remedies following alleged misrepresentation in a property transaction.

The court discussed the possibility of rescission and restitutio in integrum, meaning restoration of the parties to their pre-contract position.

Principle

Where a legally recognised ground for rescission is established, restoration may form part of the appropriate remedy.

Exam importance

This case connects:

misrepresentation → rescission → restoration.

25. Case Law 8 – Alizz Islamic Bank S.A.O.C. v Alef Capital B.S.C.(C) [2026] DIFC CFI 048

This recent DIFC decision demonstrates the continuing limits of restitutionary claims.

The court considered an alleged unjust-enrichment claim and emphasised that an indirect or incidental benefit does not automatically become an unjust enrichment.

Principle

A benefit must be legally unjustified before restitution can arise.

Exam importance

This is particularly useful for modern commercial disputes involving:

financial services;

corporate expenditure;

contractual relationships;

indirect benefits.

26. Main Restitution Remedies in UAE Civil Law

Restitution can take several forms.

Remedy 1 – Return of the Original Property

The defendant returns the exact property.

Example: Wrongfully possessed vehicle → vehicle returned.

Remedy 2 – Return of Equivalent Property

Where the original property cannot be returned, an equivalent may be required where the law permits.

Example: Fungible goods wrongfully taken → equivalent quantity returned.

Remedy 3 – Payment of Value

Where restoration in kind is impossible, the value may be recovered.

Example: Property destroyed → legally recoverable value.

Remedy 4 – Recovery of Undue Payment

Money or property transferred without being due may be recovered.

Example: Duplicate bank payment.

Remedy 5 – Restitution Following Contract Cancellation

Payments or property transferred under a transaction may need to be restored following lawful cancellation or termination.

Remedy 6 – Recovery of Benefits

The claimant may seek legally recoverable benefits or accretions derived from wrongfully possessed property.

Remedy 7 – Restitutio in Integrum

Where appropriate, the objective is to restore parties to the position they occupied before the relevant transaction.

This is especially relevant to rescission-type remedies.

27. Restitution and Invalid Contracts

An invalid contract may create a restitutionary problem.

Suppose:

A pays B AED 500,000 under a transaction that is legally invalid.

The question becomes:

What legal basis allows B to retain the AED 500,000?

If no lawful basis exists, restitution may be required.

The exact consequence depends upon:

the type of invalidity;

the statutory provisions governing the transaction;

whether property has been transferred;

whether third parties are involved.

28. Restitution and Fraud

Fraud can produce several remedies simultaneously.

For example:

A fraudulently obtains AED 1 million from B.

Possible remedies may include:

recovery of the AED 1 million;

restitution;

damages;

rescission where legally available;

recovery of property;

other appropriate civil relief.

Restitution focuses particularly on:

Returning the benefit obtained through the wrongful transaction.

29. Restitution and Wrongful Possession

Wrongful possession is closely connected with restitution.

Suppose:

A owns a valuable piece of equipment.

B takes it without legal authority.

B may be required to:

return the equipment;

compensate for legally recoverable consequences of its loss/use;

account for benefits or yields where the law requires.

The current Civil Transactions Law contains provisions concerning wrongful possession and restoration.

30. Restitution and Property Recovery

A property owner may seek recovery of:

movable property;

immovable property;

money;

identifiable assets;

other property interests.

The claimant should establish ownership or another legally protected entitlement.

Restitution is therefore closely connected with property law.

31. Restitution and Digital Assets

The principle also has modern relevance.

Suppose:

A accidentally transfers cryptocurrency to B.

The basic questions become:

Who owned the cryptocurrency?

Was the transfer authorised?

Was it due?

Can the asset still be identified?

Has it been transferred onward?

Is recovery in kind possible?

If not, what value can be claimed?

The fact that an asset is digital does not necessarily remove the basic restitutionary question:

Who is legally entitled to retain it?

32. Restitution and Banking Transactions

Banking disputes frequently produce recovery claims.

Examples include:

duplicate transfers;

wrong-account payments;

unauthorised transfers;

mistaken settlement;

overpayment;

payment after discharge of debt.

Electronic records may provide important evidence of:

amount;

date;

account;

sender;

recipient;

payment instruction.

33. Restitution and Corporate Transactions

Restitution may arise where:

company money is transferred without authority;

directors receive unauthorised benefits;

company property is misappropriated;

a transaction is invalid;

a shareholder improperly receives corporate property.

However, corporate personality is important.

A shareholder does not automatically own the company's assets.

Therefore, a recovery claim concerning company property normally has to be brought by the legally entitled entity.

34. Restitution and Construction Contracts

Restitution may arise where:

a construction contract is cancelled;

an advance payment was made;

performance failed;

the contractual basis for retaining the payment disappeared.

But contractors should distinguish restitution from:

contractual payment;

variation claims;

quantum meruit;

damages.

If the contract provides a clear payment mechanism, the court will generally examine that contractual framework before accepting a broad unjust-enrichment argument.

35. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment – Important Limitation

The following proposition should be remembered:

Unjust enrichment is not simply a claim that the defendant became richer.

There must be a legal reason why retention of the benefit is unjustified.

This is the central lesson of DAMAC Park Towers v Ward.

Therefore:

Benefit + lawful basis = generally no restitution

while:

Benefit + absence/failure of lawful basis + claimant's entitlement = potential restitution.

36. Restitution and Good Faith

Good faith can affect:

benefits retained;

liability for income/yield;

change of position;

timing of liability;

extent of restoration.

A recipient who knowingly retains another's property is generally in a more difficult position than an innocent recipient.

The current Civil Transactions Law expressly differentiates certain consequences according to the recipient's state of knowledge.

37. Burden of Proof

A claimant seeking restitution should normally establish the factual and legal foundation of the claim.

Important evidence includes:

contracts;

invoices;

receipts;

bank statements;

transfer records;

property documents;

correspondence;

accounting records;

electronic records;

expert evidence where necessary.

The claimant should clearly identify:

What was transferred?

Why was it transferred?

Why was it not due?

Why is the defendant not entitled to retain it?

What exactly must be returned?

38. Restitution and Multiple Remedies

A claimant may sometimes plead alternative remedies.

For example:

Primary claim

Breach of contract.

Alternative claim

Restitution.

Further alternative

Unjust enrichment.

Additional claim

Damages.

However, the claimant cannot recover twice for the same underlying loss or benefit.

The court must ensure that the final remedy does not produce double recovery.

39. Practical Test for Restitution

For examination purposes, use this ten-step test:

Step 1

Identify the benefit.

Step 2

Identify the recipient.

Step 3

Identify the claimant's entitlement.

Step 4

Ask whether there was a valid legal basis.

Step 5

Determine whether the payment/property was due.

Step 6

Check whether the transaction was cancelled, invalid or ineffective.

Step 7

Determine whether the original property still exists.

Step 8

Calculate equivalent/value if necessary.

Step 9

Consider good faith, bad faith and change of position.

Step 10

Select the appropriate restitutionary remedy.

40. Simple Examples

Example A – Mistaken Payment

A transfers AED 50,000 to B by mistake.

Remedy: Recovery of undue payment, subject to the statutory requirements.

Example B – Wrongfully Taken Property

A takes B's vehicle without legal authority.

Remedy: Return of the vehicle and other legally recoverable consequences.

Example C – Cancelled Contract

A pays B AED 500,000.

The contract is lawfully cancelled and restoration is required.

Remedy: Restitution of the payment, subject to the applicable law.

Example D – Valid Contract

A pays B AED 500,000 under a valid contract.

B is contractually entitled to the money.

Result: Normally not unjust enrichment.

Example E – Invalid Transaction

A transfers property under a transaction having no valid legal basis.

Possible remedy: Restoration of property or its equivalent/value.

41. Restitution Remedies Table

42. Key Principles from the Cases

DAMAC Park Towers v Ward

Enrichment alone is not enough.

Larmag v FAB

Property obtained without lawful cause may have to be returned, but the claimant must establish the relevant entitlement.

Basin Supply v Rouge

Mistake, failure of consideration and invalidity may provide potential restitutionary grounds where established.

Dagny v Dag

Good faith and change of position can affect restitution.

Amit Dattani v DAMAC

Contractual termination can trigger restitution where the statutory requirements are met.

Salem Dwela v DAMAC

Rescission may involve restoration to the pre-contract position.

Alizz Islamic Bank v Alef Capital

An incidental benefit is not automatically unjust enrichment.

43. Current UAE Law – Exam Formula

The easiest way to remember restitution under current UAE civil law is:

PROPERTY/MONEY RECEIVED

↓

LEGAL BASIS?

↓

If YES

Usually retain according to the contract/statute.

If NO

↓

UNJUST ENRICHMENT / UNDUE RECEIPT / WRONGFUL POSSESSION

↓

RETURN ORIGINAL PROPERTY

or

RETURN EQUIVALENT/VALUE

LEGALLY RECOVERABLE BENEFITS

44. Restitution vs Specific Performance

These remedies should also be distinguished.

Specific performance

Requires a party to perform the contractual obligation.

Restitution

Returns what has already been transferred.

Example:

A agrees to sell property to B.

If the contract remains enforceable:

Specific performance may require completion.

If the contract is validly cancelled and restoration is required:

Restitution may require return of the payment.

45. Restitution vs Rescission

Rescission/cancellation concerns the legal status of the transaction.

Restitution concerns the consequences of reversing the transaction.

Therefore:

Rescission/cancellation → transaction undone

Restitution → exchanged benefits restored

They can operate together where the applicable law permits.

46. Restitution and Prescription

Recovery claims are subject to applicable prescription/limitation rules.

The relevant period can depend upon:

nature of the claim;

date of payment;

date of wrongful acquisition;

date of knowledge;

fraud;

special legislation.

Since the new Civil Transactions Law became effective on 1 June 2026, current claims should be analysed under the current Code and its transitional provisions rather than automatically applying limitation provisions from the repealed 1985 Code.

47. Importance of Restitution in UAE Civil Law

Restitution is important because it provides a mechanism for:

protecting ownership;

correcting mistaken payments;

reversing unjustified transfers;

dealing with invalid transactions;

restoring contractual performances;

recovering wrongfully possessed property;

preventing unjust enrichment;

recovering legally relevant benefits;

supporting commercial fairness;

preventing defendants from retaining benefits without legal justification.

48. Conclusion

Restitution remedies are an important part of UAE civil law.

The current Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 expressly recognises unjust enrichment and receipt of the undue, while also providing rules concerning restoration of property and related benefits.

The basic principle is:

A person who receives or retains another person's property or benefit without sufficient legal justification may be required to restore it.

However, restitution is not automatic.

The court must consider:

Benefit → Entitlement → Legal Basis → Unjustification → Causation/Transaction → Appropriate Restoration

The principal remedies include:

return of the original property;

return of equivalent property;

payment of value;

recovery of undue payments;

restoration following appropriate cancellation or termination;

recovery of legally relevant benefits and accretions;

restitutio in integrum where appropriate.

The case law also establishes important limits:

DAMAC Park Towers v Ward – enrichment alone is insufficient;

Larmag v FAB – lawful entitlement and absence of legal basis are central;

Basin Supply v Rouge – mistake and failure of consideration can be relevant;

Dagny v Dag – good faith and change of position can matter;

Amit Dattani v DAMAC – contractual termination may produce restitution;

Salem Dwela v DAMAC – rescission may involve restoration;

Alizz Islamic Bank v Alef Capital – an incidental benefit does not automatically constitute unjust enrichment.

Quick Revision

Restitution = Restore

Unjust enrichment = Benefit without sufficient legal justification

Undue payment = Payment that was not legally due

Wrongful possession = Return property/value + applicable benefits

Invalid/cancelled transaction = Possible restoration

Good faith = May affect extent of recovery

Bad faith = May produce broader consequences

Valid contractual basis = Usually defeats unjust-enrichment claim

One-line exam definition

Restitution under UAE civil law is a restorative remedy by which money, property, benefits or their legally recoverable equivalent/value are returned when retained without sufficient legal justification or when the applicable law requires restoration following an ineffective, cancelled or otherwise reversed transaction.