Federal Supreme Court Judgment on the Enforcement of Saudi Court Judgments via the Absher Notification System

United Arab Emirates - The Federal Supreme Court

Hearing: Wednesday, 17 November 2025

Presiding: Judge Jumaa Ibrahim Mohammed Al Otaibi (President of the Circuit)
Members: Judge Al Bashir bin Al Hadi Zaytoun and Judge Al Hassan bin Al Arabi Fayidi

Civil Appeal No. 840 of 2025

Legal Principles and Summary

1. Civil Procedure: Execution – Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Orders: Conditions and Rules of Execution: Enforcement of judgments pursuant to the GCC Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments, Judicial Delegations, and Notices; Judgment: Reasoning of Judgment: Elements required to reassure the reader and what constitutes defect in reasoning.

2. Judgments – Adequacy of Reasoning: A judgment must intrinsically reassure the reader that the court meticulously examined the case files and evidence, addressed substantial defenses, and articulated the grounds justifying its conclusions and source of adjudication. Failure to do so constitutes a deficiency in reasoning.

3. Foreign Judgments and Orders – Enforcement Conditions: Judgments and orders issued in a foreign country may be executed within the State upon an ex parte application submitted to the execution judge under the statutory conditions governing the enforcement of domestic judgments. A condition precedent is verifying that the courts of the State do not hold exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute, that the judgment is final and conclusive and duly authenticated, that the parties were properly represented, and that it does not conflict with a prior local judgment or public policy and morals.

4. Service via Official Electronic Platforms (Absher): Where it is established that the judgment sought to be executed was rendered after serving the respondent with the statement of claim via SMS through the officially accredited Saudi "Absher" portal, and the applicant submitted the conclusive final judgment meeting all statutory requirements under Article 222 of the Civil Procedure Law and the GCC Execution Agreement, the procedural requirements are satisfied. The appellate judgment's disregard of these facts constitutes a misapplication of the law, warranting cassation and dismissal of the appeal, thereby sustaining the first-instance judgment dismissing the execution grievance.

Federal Supreme Court - Legal Principles and Statutory Analysis

1. It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this Court that a judicial ruling must inherently demonstrate to the reader that the court examined the evidence adduced before it, extracted its proper legal conclusions with full discernment, dealt with the substantial defenses raised by the litigants, provided justifiable reasons for its position, and clarified the source of its finding and the exhaustion of its truth-seeking powers; otherwise, its judgment is defective for want of reasoning.

2. It is established pursuant to Article 222 of the Civil Procedure Law that judgments and orders rendered in a foreign state may be enforced in the State under the same conditions prescribed by that state's law for enforcing domestic judgments and orders. An enforcement order is petitioned via an ex parte application meeting the criteria set out in Article 44 to the execution judge. The order may not be granted unless the following are verified:

   • The courts of the State do not hold exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute, and the foreign courts possess jurisdiction according to international rules of jurisdiction.

   • The judgment or order was issued by a competent court in accordance with the law of that foreign country and is duly authenticated.

   • The parties to the dispute were properly summoned and represented.

   • The judgment has acquired res judicata status under the issuing court's laws, accompanied by a certificate to that effect or explicit statement within the judgment.

   • The judgment does not contradict a prior domestic judgment and does not violate public order or morals.

3. The case documents demonstrate that the foreign judgment sought to be executed was rendered following proper service of process upon the respondent via SMS to his phone number registered on the Absher system, which is an accredited official electronic notification portal in Saudi Arabia pursuant to the Law of Procedure before Sharia Courts and its implementing circular dated 04/05/1439 AH, and pursuant to Article 9 of the 1996 GCC Convention on Enforcement ratified by Federal Decree No. 41 of 1996...

...as will be stated in the operative part (dismissing the appeal on the merits, sustaining the appealed judgment, and ordering the appellant to bear the costs of both instances).

The Court

Factual Background and Procedural History

The facts, as revealed by the contested judgment and case records, indicate that the grievant (appellant) filed Execution Grievance No. 498/2025 (Substantive Commercial Execution Dispute) against the respondent, seeking the revocation of the executory formula affixed to the judicial judgment rendered in Case No. 2225/1440 Commercial Riyadh on 23 Jumada Al-Akhirah 1440 AH.

This was premised on the ground that on 24/09/2024, in Execution Case No. 4294/2024 Commercial Ajman, the Execution Judge endorsed the judgment rendered in Riyadh Commercial Case No. 2225/1440 AH with the executory formula, whereby the Commercial Court in Riyadh (Fourth Circuit) had ordered the respondent to pay the appellant SAR 1,120,691 (one million one hundred twenty thousand six hundred ninety-one Saudi Riyals). The respondent alleged that he was not duly represented, rendering the affixation of the executory formula unlawful.

On 25 March 2025, the Ajman Court of First Instance ruled to dismiss the grievance and order the continuation of execution. The respondent appealed this judgment under Appeal No. 290/2025. In its hearing on 26/08/2025, the Court of Appeal admitted the appeal in form and, on the merits, reversed the appealed judgment, cancelled the executory formula affixed to the judgment in Case No. 2225/1440 Commercial Riyadh, and dismissed the request.

The appellant challenged that ruling by filing the present appeal in cassation. Following in-chambers review, the Court scheduled a hearing and notified the parties.

Grounds of Cassation and Legal Reasoning

The appellant contends that the contested appellate judgment erred in its application and interpretation of the law, suffered from deficiency in reasoning, and infringed upon the right of defense. The appellate court vacated the first-instance judgment in violation of Articles 7 and 9 of the GCC Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments, Delegations, and Judicial Notices (ratified by Federal Decree No. 41 of 1996), which explicitly prohibit the executing court from reviewing the substantive merits or questioning the internal procedures of the rendering jurisdiction (Saudi Arabia) as long as they are valid under its domestic laws.

The appellant highlights that the contested judgment reassessed the validity of process service, notwithstanding that the Saudi judgment clearly stated that the respondent was duly notified of the statement of claim via an SMS message sent to his mobile phone registered on the Absher system. Consequently, the appellate ruling committed a reversible error.

This Court finds the appellant's argument well-founded. A judgment must demonstrate that the court examined the evidence, engaged with substantial arguments, and articulated sound legal justification.

Pursuant to Article 222 of the UAE Civil Procedure Law, foreign judgments and orders may be declared enforceable under reciprocity. A petition must be submitted to the execution judge, who verifies that UAE courts do not hold exclusive jurisdiction, the foreign court had international jurisdiction, the judgment is authentic and issued by a competent court, the litigants were duly summoned and represented, and the ruling has attained res judicata status without contravening UAE public policy or a prior local judgment.

(e) That the foreign judgment does not contradict a prior judgment or order issued by a court in the State and does not violate public policy or morals.

Court's Evaluation and Decisive Finding

The case record conclusively demonstrates that the foreign judgment sought to be enforced was rendered after the respondent was properly notified via SMS to the mobile number registered in his name on the Absher system, as confirmed in the reasoning of the Saudi judgment. This is an official, recognized notification system in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia under the Law of Procedure before Sharia Courts pursuant to the official Circular issued on 04/05/1439 AH, and in accordance with Article 9 of the 1996 GCC Convention on the Execution of Judgments, Delegations, and Judicial Notices (ratified by Federal Decree No. 41 of 1996).

The execution creditor submitted a certified true copy of the judgment and a certificate confirming that it has acquired conclusive res judicata authority. The appellant properly applied for an enforcement order before the Execution Judge at Ajman Court under Article 222 of the Civil Procedure Law. Although the judgment debtor raised Execution Dispute No. 498/2025 seeking a stay of proceedings, the court of first instance rightfully rejected the dispute and ordered the continuation of execution.

By ignoring these established material facts supported by authentic documents and ruling that enforcement conditions were unfulfilled, the appellate judgment departed from the record, lacked adequate reasoning, and erred in the application of the law, warranting cassation. Since the merits are ripe for adjudication pursuant to Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Law, the Court resolves the dispute by dismissing the appeal, affirming the first-instance judgment, and sustaining execution with costs assessed against the appellant.