📋 Judgment Summary: Appeals 18/2026 & 22/2026 Commercial

This ruling by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation addresses two related appeals concerning a construction contract dispute. The core legal principle applied is res judicata, leading to the overturning of an appellate court judgment for having re-adjudicated a matter that was already final.

🔍 Case Background & Lower Court Proceedings

The dispute originated from two lawsuits filed at the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance concerning a construction contract dated March 11, 2024.

Case 1: Lawsuit No. 775/2025 (Filed by the Contractor)

The contractor (Appellant in Cassation No. 18/2026) sued the project owner (Respondent) and the project consultant, demanding:

• Payment of outstanding dues of AED 3,365,705.75.

• Return of a guarantee cheque for AED 639,758.00.

• Approval of the final price for additional works, which increased the project scope by over 65%.

• Compensation of AED 500,000 for damages due to payment delays.

Case 2: Lawsuit No. 806/2025 (Filed by the Project Owner)

The project owner (Appellant in Cassation No. 22/2026) sued the contractor, seeking:

• Termination of the construction contract due to breach.

• Payment of AED 7,052,800 and AED 21,387,506.55.

• Return of equipment valued at over AED 400,000.

• The owner claimed the contractor abandoned the project at only 21.8% completion.

First Instance & First Appeal Rulings

The Court of First Instance issued a consolidated judgment on November 12, 2025. This judgment was appealed by the contractor in Appeal No. 1487/2025. On November 26, 2025, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial judgment. This appellate decision became final and binding when the subsequent cassation appeal (No. 1333/2025) was dismissed on December 10, 2025, thus acquiring the force of a final adjudicated matter (res judicata).

The Second, Contested Appeal

Despite the finality of the first appeal, the project owner filed a separate appeal (No. 1604/2025) against the same First Instance judgment. On December 30, 2025, the Court of Appeal heard this second appeal and modified the original judgment, increasing the compensation awarded to the owner from AED 600,000 to AED 2,670,250. It is this second appellate judgment that was challenged in the current cassation proceedings.

⚖️ Court of Cassation's Analysis and Ruling

Appeal No. 18/2026 (Filed by the Contractor)

The contractor argued that the second appellate judgment (from Appeal No. 1604/2025) was void because it violated the principle of res judicata. The matter had already been conclusively decided in the first appeal (No. 1487/2025), which had become final and unchallengeable. The project owner was a party to that first appeal and failed to file a counter-appeal at that time.

The Court of Cassation found this argument to be valid. It held:

"If one of the parties appeals a judgment and the Court of Appeal rules on it, and that ruling is not challenged by cassation, it becomes final and acquires the force of a final adjudicated matter. This prevents the parties from re-litigating the same dispute in a second appeal, even with new legal or factual evidence. The Court of Appeal erred by hearing the second appeal (1604/2025) after the dispute was settled by a final judgment in the first appeal (1487/2025)."

Therefore, the court concluded that the challenged judgment must be overturned.

Appeal No. 22/2026 (Filed by the Project Owner)

The project owner argued that the compensation amount of AED 2,670,250 was insufficient to cover the actual damages, including loss of profit, financing costs, and price differences for hiring a new contractor. However, as the Court of Cassation had already decided to overturn the entire appellate judgment based on the procedural ground of res judicata raised in the first appeal, the merits of this second appeal became moot. The court, therefore, dismissed this appeal.

⚡ Final Verdict

The Court of Cassation ruled as follows:

1. In Cassation Appeal No. 18/2026: The Court overturns (نقض) the appealed judgment. It orders the respondent (project owner) to pay legal fees and expenses, including AED 1,000 for the appellant's legal fees.

2. In Cassation Appeal No. 22/2026: The Court rejects (رفض) the appeal. It orders the appellant (project owner) to pay legal fees and expenses, including AED 1,000 for the respondent's legal fees, and confiscates the security deposit.

3. On the Merits of Appeal No. 1604/2025: The Court rules the appeal inadmissible (بعدم جواز نظره) due to prior adjudication in Appeal No. 1487/2025. The appellant in that case is ordered to pay costs and AED 500 in legal fees.