Civil Cassation: Jurisdiction for Appointing an Expert to Establish a State of Facts

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

In the public session held on 16-07-2026 at the seat of the Court of Cassation in Dubai

In Cassation No. 1066 of 2026, Civil Cassation

Appellant:

Kh. Kh. D. A.

Respondent:

Sh. B. A. A.

The Appealed Judgment:

Issued in Appeal No. 1/2026, Summary Civil Appeal, dated 17-03-2026.

The following judgment was issued

After reviewing the documents and hearing the summary report recited by the appointed judge, Osama Al-Beheiry, and after deliberation.

Whereas the facts, as they appear from the appealed judgment and all other documents, are that the appellant filed Case No. 22 of 2025, summary matter, requesting a judgment on an urgent basis to appoint an engineering expert for a physical inspection and to conduct an inventory of the contents of the appellant's house and all his belongings, including clothes and documents, and to establish the condition of the assets in the property.

---

Stating in support of this that the respondent was his lawful wife, whom he divorced on 23/09/2025, and she prevented him from entering his house, which he owns by inheritance from his father. Given that the house contains all his belongings, as well as his clothes and personal items, and there is a possibility of their loss or alteration over time, he filed the lawsuit.

On 23/12/2025, the court, in a summary matter, ruled that it lacked specific jurisdiction to hear the case.

The appellant appealed this judgment under Appeal No. 1 of 2026, Summary Civil Matters. On 17/03/2026, the court ruled to uphold the appealed judgment.

The appellant challenged this judgment by way of cassation in Cassation No. 1066 of 2026, Civil, with a statement of claim filed electronically with the case management office on 01/05/2026, seeking its reversal. The respondent submitted a defense memorandum in which she argued for the inadmissibility of the appeal in form for being filed after the deadline. When the appeal was presented to this court in the deliberation chamber, it decided to schedule it for a judgment hearing without oral arguments for today's session.

Whereas, regarding the plea raised by the respondent for the inadmissibility of the appeal for being filed after the deadline; since Circular No. 1 of 2026 concerning the suspension of the running of legal periods stipulated that 'The periods for statute of limitations, grievances, and all appeals shall be extended from 10/04/2026 until 27/04/2026... and all courts shall adhere to what is stated in the first clause and not rule on prescription, inadmissibility, lapse, or inadmissibility during this period... and this decision shall be effective from 28/04/2026...', which means that the circular establishes a suspension of the running of periods for statute of limitations, grievances, and appeals during the period from 10/04/2026 until 27/04/2026, such that these days are not counted within the legal period for the appeal, and similar days are added instead after the end of the appeal period. Therefore, the deadline is extended by adding 18 days (the suspension period). The appealed judgment was issued on 17/03/2026 in the appeal filed by the appellant, and the last day for the appeal was 17/04/2026. The appellant filed the cassation statement of claim electronically on 01/05/2026. Thus, by adding the period stipulated in the circular, the appeal is deemed to have been filed within the deadline.

---

The appeal becomes timely filed, and the plea of the lapse of the right to appeal is rejected. The appeal has thus fulfilled its formal requirements.

Whereas the appellant's challenge in the grounds of appeal against the appealed judgment is based on a violation of the law, error in its application, flawed reasoning, قصور in the reasoning, and violation of the right to defense. The court based its judgment dismissing the case to establish a state of facts on the absence of urgency, despite the provisions of Articles (27) and (40) of the Civil Procedure Law and Article (108) of the Evidence Law having vested jurisdiction in the summary judge to hear a case to establish a state of facts whenever there is a fear of losing the features of a material event that is likely to be the subject of a future dispute, without requiring a ruling on the merits of the right. The appellant based his claim on the fact that the property in dispute contains personal belongings, movables, and expensive finishes owned by him, and that their remaining in the possession of the respondent exposes them to the risk of dissipation or concealment with alteration of their features, which necessitates establishing their condition urgently. The request to establish the state of facts does not relate to the property itself but extends to the movables, belongings, and finishes owned by him, independent of the property itself, to prepare evidence and preserve it before its loss or alteration of its features, which is the purpose for which the legislator enacted the case to establish a state of facts, thereby rendering the judgment defective and warranting its reversal.

Whereas this challenge is unfounded, as it is established in the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation that the issue of general or specific jurisdiction is a matter of public policy and is always considered present in the dispute and before the court. It is incumbent upon the court to address it on its own initiative, and litigants may also raise the lack of general or specific jurisdiction of the court at any stage of the case. It is also established, according to what the General Panel of the Court of Cassation has decided, that a case to establish a state of facts is a lawsuit to which a litigant resorts to avert the existing danger of the disappearance of the features of the incident that cannot be covered by the ordinary litigation procedures in preparation for filing the substantive lawsuit. It is required for the jurisdiction of the summary judiciary alone to be established that its two jurisdictional conditions are met, namely urgency and not affecting the merits of the right.

---

the right. This means that if both conditions are met, jurisdiction to hear this case belongs solely to the summary judge, and the merits court is not competent to hear it unless it is brought before it as an ancillary matter to a substantive case pending before it. However, if either of the two conditions is not met, jurisdiction is vested in the merits judge, unless the request therein is only for the appointment of an expert, in which case jurisdiction to hear it belongs to the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes.

It is established, according to the text of paragraph (5) of Article (1) of the Dubai Courts President's Decision No. (8) of 2022 concerning the determination of disputes falling under the jurisdiction of the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes for consideration and decision, that '...subject to the provisions of Article (5) of Law No. (18) of 2021 concerning the regulation of conciliation works in the Emirate of Dubai, the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes is competent to hear and decide on individual applications for the appointment of an expert initially'.

Since this is the case, and as the appellant's requests in the lawsuit were for the appointment of an expert to establish the state of facts, jurisdiction to hear the case is vested in the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes, and the Court of First Instance is not competent to hear the case. As the appealed judgment ended with this conclusion and ruled in a summary matter on the court's lack of specific jurisdiction to hear the case, it has reached a correct result. It is not marred by the inclusion of erroneous legal reasoning in some parts, as the Court of Cassation can correct this reasoning without quashing it, rendering the entire appeal baseless. Since the foregoing is established, the appeal must be dismissed.

For these reasons

The Court has ruled: To dismiss the appeal and to order the appellant to pay the expenses and an amount of two thousand dirhams for attorney's fees, with confiscation of the security deposit.