In the Name of His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates / Ruler of Abu Dhabi

Judgment of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Commercial Chamber

In the session held at the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on Tuesday, 24 Shawwal 1446 AH, corresponding to 22/04/2025 AD.

Presided over by Judge: Abdullah Ali
With the membership of Judge: Mohammed Hassan
With the membership of Judge: Idris bin Shaqroun

The court reviewed Case No. 379-2025-Commercial-C-R-Q-A-Z Commercial Main Branch
Registered on: 27/03/2025
Subject: Appeal by Cassation

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

The Grounds

Whereas the appeal has fulfilled its formal requirements.

Whereas the facts, as evident from the appealed judgment and all other documents, show that the appellants filed an objection against the respondent under Objection No. 69/2024 in Enforcement Case No. 1188/2024 (Enforcement of Al Ain Cheques), requesting a stay of the enforcement procedures until the objection is decided, and, in the merits, the cancellation of the enforcement procedures, the closure of the enforcement file, and obligating the respondent to submit the original cheque and the sale contract. This was based on the claim that the cheque, the subject of the enforcement, was a security cheque for the execution of a sale contract for a public housing unit, in which the second appellant's father sold a public house, and the cheque subject to enforcement was signed by the first appellant, which led them to file the present objection. They submitted a memorandum with their previous requests and also requested the appointment of a forensic evidence laboratory expert from the forgery and counterfeiting department to determine the date the cheque was written, its data, and the date of its issuance and signature. The respondent submitted a memorandum requesting the dismissal of the objection, arguing that the cheque is a payment instrument. He also submitted a final memorandum requesting the rejection of the forgery claim, based on the report of the appointed expert in the objection, which stated that the signature is authentic and the cheque is a payment instrument. He also relied on the finality of the criminal judgment issued in Misdemeanor Case No. 4018-2024 Al Ain Public Prosecution. At the session of 29/10/2024, the court ordered the appointment of an expert in the objection to carry out the assigned mission. In execution of this, the expert submitted his report, concluding that the parties to the objection did not provide documents proving that the cheque was a security cheque for the sale of the public housing unit, nor documents showing how the cheque was delivered and received and how the sale price was paid. The report added that the cheque is valid, as its signatory, the first appellant, acknowledged the authenticity of the signature. At the session of 21/01/2025, the court ruled to accept the objection in form, reject it in substance, and confiscate the security deposit. The appellants appealed this judgment under Appeal No. 20/2025 Commercial Appeal Al Ain. At the session of 03/03/2025, the court, in the consultation chamber, decided to accept the appeal in form, and in the merits, to reject it and uphold the appealed judgment. The appellants challenged this judgment with the present appeal by cassation. The respondent's counsel submitted a response memorandum requesting the rejection of the appeal. As the appeal was presented to the court in the consultation chamber, it was deemed worthy of consideration, and a session was set for its review.

Annex to Judgment No. 379-2025-Commercial

Date: 22/04/2025

It is established by Article 153 of the Civil Procedure Law that: ((1- The period for appealing a judgment begins on the day following the date of its issuance, unless the law provides otherwise. This period begins from the date of notifying the judgment to the convicted party in cases where they failed to attend all the sessions set for the hearing of the case and did not submit a memorandum of defense.... 4- Failure to observe the time limits for appealing judgments results in the forfeiture of the right to appeal, and the court shall rule on the forfeiture ex officio)). Article 161 of the same law states that ((the time limit for appeal is thirty days, unless the law provides otherwise, and the time limit is ten days in urgent matters)). Articles 207/1, 211/1, and 209/2 thereof state that ((the enforcement judge has exclusive jurisdiction to execute the writ of execution and to decide on all enforcement disputes on an urgent basis. He is also competent to issue judgments, decisions, and orders related thereto. With the exception of real estate ownership claims, the enforcement judge has exclusive jurisdiction to execute the writ of execution and to decide on all substantive and temporary enforcement disputes on an urgent basis. He is also competent to issue judgments, decisions, and orders related thereto. The decisions of the enforcement judge may be appealed directly before the competent Court of Appeal within (10) ten working days from the date of issuance of the decision if it was in person, and from the day of its notification or knowledge thereof if it was issued in the absence of the party, in any of the following cases: (a) The jurisdiction or lack thereof of the enforcement judge to execute the writ of execution - (b) The attached funds which may not be attached or sold - (c) The participation of persons other than the litigants in the attachment - (d) Refusal to imprison or imprisoning the debtor, provided that the appellant in the latter case provides a guarantor who is responsible for bringing the person under his guarantee or for paying the amount adjudged, and in case of his failure to bring him and the guarantor's failure to bring his guaranteed person, the court shall oblige him with the value of the guarantee, which shall be collected from him in the same way judgments are executed - (e) The decision issued regarding the determination of the amount to be executed, and the continuation of its execution or not)).

Collectively, these provisions indicate that all substantive and temporary enforcement disputes are brought before the enforcement judge to be decided on an urgent basis, and he is also competent to issue judgments, decisions, and orders related to enforcement. Litigants may appeal the decisions of the enforcement judge directly before the competent Court of Appeal within (10) ten working days from the date of the decision's issuance if it was in person, and from the day of its notification or knowledge thereof if it was issued in the absence of the litigant, in the cases exclusively listed in the second paragraph of Article 209 of the aforementioned Civil Procedure Law. This being the case, and as it is established from the documents that the appellants filed Objection No. 69 of 2024 in Enforcement Case No. 1188/2024 (enforcement of Al Ain cheques), in which the competent judge issued his judgment in person on 21/01/2025 in a substantive enforcement dispute, accepting the objection in form and rejecting it in substance. Therefore, the time limit for appealing this judgment is ten working days, as it was issued in an enforcement matter. This period begins to run from the day following the issuance of the decision on 21/01/2025, as it was issued in person. The last day for appealing would be Tuesday, 04/02/2025, which did not coincide with a public holiday or official leave in the state, after excluding Saturdays and Sundays from the prescribed period for the appeal. It is established that the appellants did not file their appeal until 13/02/2025 – that is, after the expiry of the (10) working days prescribed as the time limit for appeal – thus their appeal is filed after the legally prescribed deadline. The penalty prescribed by law is the forfeiture of the right to appeal by cassation, which is a matter of public policy that the court must decide ex officio, which must be ruled upon. Since the appealed judgment diverged from this view and ruled to accept the appeal in form, it has violated the law and erred in its application, which requires it to be overturned for this reason without the need to examine the grounds of the appeal.

As the subject is ripe for judgment, and for the foregoing reasons,

For These Reasons

The Court has ruled:

To overturn the appealed judgment and ordered the appellants to pay the fees and expenses and an amount of one thousand dirhams for the respondent's legal fees, and ordered the confiscation of the security deposit. It has ruled in Appeal No. 20 of 2025 Commercial Appeal Al Ain for the forfeiture of the right to appeal for being filed after the deadline and ordered the appellants to pay the fees and expenses of the appeal and an amount of 500 dirhams for legal fees.

Annex to Judgment No. 379-2025-Commercial

Date: 22/04/2025

Unofficial digital copy