In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

Court of Cassation

At the public session held on 07-07-2026 at the seat of the Dubai Court of Cassation

In Appeal No. 251 of 2026 Civil Appeal

Appellant: A.A.A.A.

Respondent: T.A.A.A.

The Appealed Judgment:

Issued in Appeal No. 8/2026 Civil Enforcement Appeal on 11-03-2026

The following judgment was issued

After reviewing the documents and hearing the report recited by the assigned judge, Mr. Omar Al-Hadi, and after deliberation. Whereas the appeal has fulfilled its formal requirements.

Whereas the facts, as they appear from the appealed judgment and all other documents, are established to the extent necessary to support the grounds of this ruling, in that the appellant filed lawsuit No. 29 of 2025, a substantive civil enforcement dispute against the respondent, seeking an urgent ruling to stay the execution of the challenged arbitration award pending a decision on the substantive enforcement dispute. In the merits, it sought a ruling annulling the arbitration award issued on 15/02/2024 by the Emirates Sports Arbitration Centre in case No. (......), and refraining from its enforcement. The appellant stated in support of his claim that he was granted a stable by His Highness the Ruler of Dubai for temporary use without transfer of ownership.

ownership to him. He also agreed with the respondent in 2017 that the latter would train the horses owned by him in exchange for a percentage (25%) of the prizes they win. When a dispute arose between them, the respondent filed arbitration case No. (78) of (2020) before the Emirates Sports Arbitration Centre, requesting the settlement of accounts between the parties and claiming financial sums. The arbitration panel concluded by settling the account and obliging him - the appellant - to pay an amount of (334,500) AED and compensation of (70,000) AED. Then the respondent returned and filed arbitration case No. (87) of 2023 against him, claiming half the value of the stable, alleging he was entitled to a share of it, despite the previous settlement of accounts between the parties. The arbitration panel issued a ruling on 15/02/2024 obliging him to pay an amount of (798,500) AED and compensation for lost profits amounting to (150,000) AED. He then filed lawsuit No. (10) of 2024 seeking to annul this award, and the Court of Appeal ruled to dismiss it. He appealed this decision to the Court of Cassation in Appeal No. (351) of 2024 (Civil), and the Court of Cassation ruled to quash the judgment and remand it. After remand, the Court of Appeal ruled to annul the arbitration award. The respondent appealed this judgment to the Court of Cassation in Appeal No. (533) of 2024 (Civil), and the Court of Cassation ruled to dismiss the appeal. Then, a request for retraction from the two Cassation judgments was submitted, and the matter was referred to the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation in Appeal No. (1) of 2025 (General Assembly), which ruled on 05/11/2025 to quash the appealed judgment and to rule that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the action for annulment of the arbitration award, based on the fact that the determination of the validity of an arbitration award for enforcement falls within the jurisdiction of the enforcement judge in the context of a substantive enforcement dispute. He then filed the present dispute before the court with his requests, based on the grounds that the dispute ruled upon relates to a stable granted to him for temporary use by His Highness the Ruler of Dubai without transfer of ownership, which makes it a matter related to public order and not arbitrable, and jurisdiction over it belongs to the courts as they have general jurisdiction. The arbitration panel violated this when it estimated the value of the stable at one million dirhams, then estimated the value of the structures built on it, and awarded the opposing party half of that value, even though the stable is not owned by either party. The Emirates Sports Arbitration Centre is not competent to hear this dispute due to the absence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, and because its subject matter does not fall within the sports disputes for which the center has jurisdiction.

to decide on, in addition to the issuance of the arbitration award after the legally prescribed period according to the Centre's rules, and its violation of the res judicata of the previous arbitration award issued between the parties in arbitration case No. (78) of 2020, which had settled the accounts between them. This is in addition to the substantial irregularities that marred the issuance procedures, including the issuance of some preliminary rulings related to jurisdiction by the chairman of the arbitration panel alone without the signatures of the other members, which deprives it of the elements of validity and enforceability. He thus filed the dispute.

On 31/01/2026, the court ruled to dismiss the dispute.

The appellant appealed this judgment under Appeal No. 8 of 2026 Civil Enforcement, and on 11/03/2026, the court ruled to uphold the appealed judgment.

The appellant challenged this judgment in the present cassation appeal. The respondent submitted a memorandum in response, requesting the dismissal of the appeal. As the appeal was presented to this court in the deliberation chamber, it decided to schedule the judgment for today's session without oral arguments.

Whereas the appeal is based on seven grounds, the appellant argues in the first ground against the appealed judgment for violating the law and erring in its application. It ruled to dismiss the substantive enforcement dispute on the basis that it touches upon the authority of the executory instrument and the core right, and it refrained from examining the grounds for the nullity of the arbitration award, contrary to what the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation ruled in Appeal No. (1) of 2025 "General Assembly" that the enforcement judge, and no other, has the jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the awards and decisions of the Emirates Sports Arbitration Centre for enforcement, and to verify their compliance with the general conditions and rules for arbitration, the violation of which results in the nullity of the arbitration award and its unsuitability for enforcement, which mars the judgment and necessitates its cassation.

Whereas this argument is sound, given that it is established in the jurisprudence of this court that judgments issued by the Court of Cassation are final and binding, acquiring the force of res judicata in what they have decided on the aspects of the dispute between the parties, and that the authority of the matter adjudged attaches not only to the operative part of the judgment but also to its grounds that are closely and necessarily linked to the operative part.

for its ruling, and also in what the judgment has decided explicitly or implicitly. The ruling of a judgment is not only its operative part but the decisive statement in the lawsuit, regardless of its position in the grounds or the operative part. It is also established that the court's failure to examine a defense raised by a party results in the nullity of the judgment if this defense is substantial and influential on the outcome it reached, as this failure is considered a deficiency in the factual grounds of the judgment, which necessitates its nullification.

Since that is the case, and the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation had, by its judgment issued in Appeal No. (1) of 2025 between the parties to the dispute, settled the legal issue in question, establishing the principle that it is not permissible to file an independent action for the nullification of an arbitration award issued by the Emirates Sports Arbitration Centre, considering that its awards and decisions - according to the Centre's establishment law and procedural rules - are final and have the force of an executory instrument. The means for parties to object to them is only by presenting them for enforcement before the competent enforcement judge through a substantive enforcement dispute, as it is a dispute related to settling a legal issue that must be present before the enforcement order is issued. The enforcement judge is competent to address and rule on it, and the judgment issued by him is appealable to the Court of Cassation. The judicial oversight of the arbitration award is limited to verifying its compliance with the general rules of arbitration and the validity of its procedures, and does not extend to reconsidering the arbitrator's assessment of the facts, evidence, or the soundness of his grounds. The fact that an arbitration award issued by the Emirates Sports Arbitration Centre enjoys the force of an executory instrument does not preclude it from being subject to the judicial oversight exercised by the enforcement judge within the aforementioned limits. This requires the enforcement judge, when considering the substantive dispute, to adhere to the authority of the General Assembly's judgment on the legal issue it has settled, and to address the grounds raised before him that fall within the scope of that oversight, examine them, and then state his decision on them, whether by acceptance or rejection, with sound reasoning.

Since the appealed judgment has violated this view and ruled to dismiss the dispute on the grounds that the appellant's arguments for the nullity of the arbitration award cannot be examined because they touch upon the authority of the enforced judgment and relate to the adjudged right, and that they are all prior to the issuance of the executory instrument, without addressing these grounds by examination or distinguishing between what falls within the scope of the judicial oversight granted to it,

by the General Assembly to the enforcement judge and what is outside of it, it has then refrained from exercising the jurisdiction entrusted to it, and did not adhere to the res judicata of the General Assembly's judgment on the legal issue it resolved, which flaws it with violation of the law, error in its application, and قصور in reasoning, requiring its cassation, which must be accompanied by referral.

For these reasons

The court has ruled: To quash the appealed judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeal for it to be decided anew, and has ordered the respondent to pay the costs and an amount of two thousand dirhams for attorney's fees.