Ruling on Enforcement Dispute Appeal Dismissal

In the session held at the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on Tuesday, 26 Jumada al-Akhirah 1447 AH, corresponding to December 17, 2025 CE.

Presided by Judge: Mohammed Zaki
With the membership of Judge: Dr. Adlan Al-Hajj
And the membership of Judge: Imam Abdel-Zaher Hassanein

Case Number: 1191-2025-Commercial
Date of Registration: 06/11/2025
Subject: Cassation of Judgment

After hearing the oral arguments, reviewing the documents, and deliberation, the following judgment was issued:

The Reasons

Whereas the appeal has fulfilled its formal requirements.

The facts, as evident from the appealed judgment and all other case documents, are that the respondents filed enforcement dispute No. 235 of 2025 Abu Dhabi, concerning execution case No. 6660 of 2024 for Abu Dhabi cheques, seeking a judgment accepting the dispute in form, and in substance, to annul all execution procedures and permanently close the file. This was based on the claim that the executed cheque was a guarantee for a partnership between them and the appellant, and that the partnership was terminated without completing the procedures, and the cheque was not returned under the pretext that it was for effort expended. The court ruled to accept the dispute in form and, in substance, to close the execution file No. 6660 of 2024 for Abu Dhabi commercial cheques, due to the lack of an executory instrument, and consequently to annul all execution decisions and their effects. The appellant challenged this judgment in appeal No. 1341 of 2025 Abu Dhabi Commercial. On 28/10/2025, the court decided in chambers to dismiss the right to appeal. The appellant challenged this decision by way of cassation, and the respondents submitted a memorandum requesting the dismissal of the appeal. When the appeal was presented to this court in chambers, it was deemed worthy of consideration, and a session was scheduled for its review.

The appellant's first ground of appeal challenges the appealed judgment for violation of the law, defective reasoning, and flawed inference, as it ruled to dismiss the right to appeal based on the expiration of the period under Article 209/2 of the Civil Procedure Law, which is a flawed inference. The enforcement dispute is substantive, not summary. The dispute writ is printed on a form titled 'Substantive Dispute Writ,' and a checkmark is placed in the box for the substantive request. As the court involved another party..., this confirms the court addressed the substance, which removes it from the category of summary disputes and places it under substantive disputes. The court also questioned the summoned party about the subject matter and reason for the executory instrument, which constitutes an examination of the instrument's validity. Furthermore, the operative part of the judgment was a substantive ruling. Additionally, the period for appealing substantive disputes is 30 days, not 10 days, which makes the appealed judgment defective and requires its cassation.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

This plea is unfounded. The legislator has entrusted the enforcement judge exclusively—as per the text of the first paragraph of Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law—with the execution of the executory instrument and with adjudicating all substantive and summary enforcement disputes on an urgent basis, with the exception of real estate ownership claims. The enforcement judge is also competent to issue judgments, decisions, and orders related thereto. The text of Article 161 of the same law stipulates that the time limit for appeal is (30) thirty days unless the law provides otherwise, and the time limit is (10) ten days in urgent matters. Since the judgment issued by the enforcement judge in the dispute subject to the appeal was issued on an urgent basis in a substantive enforcement dispute, the time limit for appealing that judgment is ten days from the date of its issuance if in person, or from the date of its notification to the party against whom it was issued if it was issued in their absence. As it is established in the documents that the respondents filed dispute No. 235 of 2025 concerning execution No. 6660 of 2024 for Abu Dhabi cheques, in which the competent judge issued his judgment in person on 25/09/2025 in a substantive enforcement dispute, accepting the dispute in form and, in substance, permanently closing the execution file and consequently annulling all execution decisions and their effects. Therefore, the time limit for appealing this judgment is ten working days, as it was issued in an execution matter. This period begins to run from the day following the issuance of the decision on 26/09/2025, as it was issued in person, and the last day for its appeal would be Monday, 06/10/2025, as the preceding day, Sunday, 05/10/2025, was a holiday. It is established that the appellant did not file his appeal until 15/10/2025—that is, after the expiration of the (10) working days prescribed as the time limit for appeal. Thus, his appeal was filed outside the legally prescribed period. The penalty established by law is the forfeiture of the right to appeal, which is a matter of public policy that the court must apply ex officio. As the appealed judgment based its decision on the forfeiture of the right to appeal for being filed outside the legally specified time limit, it has correctly applied the law, rendering the plea baseless and warranting its rejection without need to address the remaining grounds of appeal.

For These Reasons

The Court rules:
To reject the appeal and orders the appellant to pay the fees and expenses, and an amount of one thousand dirhams for the respondents' attorney's fees, and orders the confiscation of the security deposit.

Judgment Annex

Judgment Annex Number: 2025-1191-Commercial
Date: 17/12/2025 CE

Unofficial Digital Copy