cassation_civilJanuary 28th, 2026

Procedural Rules for Appeal by Cassation Regarding Payment Deadlines

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - General Assembly

Procedural Rules for Appeal by Cassation: Timeliness of Fee and Deposit Payment

Session of January 28, 2026

Presided over by the Honorable Justice / Bouchaib Hejjami - President of the Court

With the membership of the Honorable Justices: Abdelaziz Yakoubi, Mohamed Zaki, Zouheir Iskandar, Abdullah Ali, Diaa Abdel Majid, Dr. Tarek Fathi, Adlan Al-Hajj, Imam Abdel Zaher.

Request No. 1 of 2026, Civil General Assembly

Insurance. Judicial Fees. Cassation. "Procedures for Appeal by Cassation". "Statement of Appeal". "Time Limit for Appeal". Public Order. General Assembly.

Principle of the Ruling

It is mandatory to rule for the acceptance of an appeal by cassation when the fee is paid and the deposit is made within the prescribed period for the appeal. This is not contingent on their completion within the three working days following the date of notification of the fee assessment, nor on their occurrence within that period, even if it is after the expiration of the appeal period, as long as the statement of appeal was filed within the period. The effect of this is the General Assembly's affirmation of this principle, superseding any conflicting ones. The basis and rationale for this are as follows.

Legal Analysis

The fee is paid and the deposit is made within the three working days following the notification of the fee assessment and within the appeal period.
The payment and deposit are made after the expiration of the three-day period but within the appeal period.
The payment and deposit are made within the three-day period but after the expiration of the appeal period.
The payment and deposit are made after the expiration of the three-day period and after the expiration of the appeal period.

Undoubtedly, when the payment and deposit are made within the appeal period, this renders the appeal filed in accordance with what is prescribed in clause (1) of the aforementioned Article 179, regardless of whether the payment and deposit occurred within the three working days following the notification or after their expiration, as long as the appeal period is still valid and the payment and deposit were made before its expiration. The same ruling applies to the case where the payment and deposit are made within the period following the notification, even if this coincides with the expiration of the appeal period, given that the legislator obliged the appellant to make the payment and deposit within three working days following the notification without restricting it to occur within the appeal period. Consequently, the only case, among the mentioned scenarios, where the appeal is considered filed contrary to what is prescribed in clause (1) of the said Article 179, resulting in its inadmissibility, is the case where the payment and deposit are made after the expiration of the three working days following the notification and after the expiration of the appeal period. This is because the interpretation of procedural texts must be consistent with their spirit and purpose.

with their spirit and purpose, and their effects should not be arranged at the level of inadmissibility or non-acceptance unless the violation that tainted the procedural rule affects its core and contradicts the intended goal of procedural discipline. However, if the violation is not accompanied by any such thing, as in the three cases detailed above, then there is no justification for arranging the penalty of non-acceptance.

The Assembly

After reviewing the provisions of Article (9) of Law No. (6) of 2024 concerning the Judicial Department in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, and based on the established jurisprudence of this court that a request for referral to the General Assembly may be submitted by one of the chambers of the Court of Cassation to overturn a previous principle or to unify conflicting principles, even if it is not in the process of considering a lawsuit or an appeal. And based on the memorandum submitted by the President of the First Commercial Chamber to the President of the Court of Cassation on 1/1/2026 for referral to the General Assembly of the Court to unify two conflicting judicial principles issued by this court regarding the issue of acceptance or non-acceptance of an appeal by cassation in the case of the appellant's delay in paying the prescribed security for the appeal by cassation within three working days from the date of being notified of the assessment of judicial fees, as there are two conflicting trends in the Court of Cassation regarding this issue:

The First Trend: Ruled for the non-acceptance of the appeal by cassation if the appellant did not commit to paying the security within three days from the date of notification of payment, even if they paid it after that period and before the expiration of the time limit for the appeal by cassation.
The Second Trend: Ruled for the acceptance of the appeal by cassation in the event the appellant pays the prescribed security for the appeal by cassation after more than three working days from the date of notification of payment, as long as the security payment was made within the prescribed period for the appeal by cassation.

And based on the decision of the President of the Court of Cassation to refer the matter to the General Assembly - the Civil Division - of this court, to consider this issue and unify the court's direction regarding it, the General Assembly of the Court of Cassation has decided the following:

As inferred from the provisions of Articles (179) and (181) of the Civil Procedure Law, the legislator has surrounded the appeal by cassation with a set of procedural controls, the effect of which is not established until they are fulfilled. The legislator has established a structured system that combines the obligation to pay the full fee and make the deposit within the prescribed deadlines. It is expressly stipulated that the full payment and deposit must occur within three working days from the date of the notification of the fee assessment. This implies that the failure to secure the appeal in the aforementioned manner renders it inadmissible, a decision the court must make ex officio as it pertains to procedural public order. However, determining the penalty of inadmissibility in the case of non-payment of the fee or non-making of the deposit within the said period requires a practical distinction between four scenarios: First, that the fee is paid and the deposit is made within the three working days following the notification of the fee assessment and within the appeal period. Second, that the payment and deposit are made after the expiration of the three-day period but within the appeal period. Third, that the payment and deposit are made within the three-day period but after the expiration of the appeal period. And fourth, that the payment and deposit are made after the expiration of the three-day period and after the expiration of the appeal period. And there is no doubt that

whenever the payment and deposit are made within the appeal period, this renders the appeal filed in accordance with what is prescribed in clause (1) of the aforementioned Article 179, regardless of whether the payment and deposit occurred within the three working days following the notification of the fee assessment or after their expiration, as long as the appeal period is still valid and the payment and deposit were made before its expiration. The same ruling applies to the case where the payment and deposit are made within the period following the notification, even if this coincides with the expiration of the appeal period, given that the legislator obliged the appellant to make the payment and deposit within three working days following the notification without restricting it to occur within the appeal period. Consequently, the only case, among the mentioned scenarios, where the appeal is considered filed contrary to what is prescribed in clause (1) of the said Article 179, resulting in its inadmissibility, is the case where the payment and deposit are made after the expiration of the three working days following the notification and after the expiration of the appeal period. This is because the interpretation of procedural texts must be consistent with their spirit and purpose, and their effects should not be arranged at the level of inadmissibility or non-acceptance unless the violation that tainted the procedural rule affects its core and contradicts the intended goal of procedural discipline. However, if the violation is not accompanied by any such thing, as in the three cases detailed above, then there is no justification for arranging the penalty of non-acceptance.

Therefore

The Assembly has decided:

To adopt the principle that considers an appeal by cassation as filed in the manner stipulated in clause (1) of Article (179) of the Civil Procedure Law whenever the fee is paid and the security is deposited within the period for the appeal by cassation, regardless of whether the payment or deposit occurred within the three working days from the date of notification of the fee assessment, as long as they both occurred within the appeal period. Likewise, to consider the appeal filed in accordance with the aforementioned manner whenever the payment and deposit occurred within the three-day period following the date of notification of the fee assessment, even if that occurred after the expiration of the period for the appeal by cassation, as long as the statement of appeal was filed within the period for the appeal by cassation.