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

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Commercial Court Registry

In the session held at the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation

On 26 Jumada al-Akhirah 1447 H, corresponding to 17/12/2025 AD

Presided over by Judge: Mohamed Zaki

Membership of Judge: Dr. Adlan Al-Hajj

Membership of Judge: Imam Abdelzaher Hassanain

The case was heard under No.: 1191-2025-Commercial-Main Seat

Registered on: 06/11/2025

Subject: Cassation of Judgment

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

The Reasons

Whereas the appeal has met the formal requirements.

Whereas the facts, as they appear from the appealed decision and all other documents, are that the respondents ???? filed objection No. 235 of 2025 for Abu Dhabi execution in execution case No. 6660 of 2024 for the execution of Abu Dhabi cheques, requesting a judgment accepting the objection in form, and in substance, canceling all enforcement procedures and permanently closing the file. This was based on the claim that the enforced cheque was a security cheque for partnership business between them and the appellant, and that the partnership was terminated without completing the procedures, and the cheque was not returned under the pretext that it was in exchange for effort. The court ruled to accept the objection in form and, in substance, to close the execution file No. (6660) of 2024 for the execution of commercial cheques in Abu Dhabi, as the executory instrument was absent, which necessitates the cancellation of all enforcement decisions and their resulting effects. The appellant appealed this judgment under appeal No. 1341 of 2025 Commercial Abu Dhabi, and on 28/10/2025, the court decided in chambers that the right to appeal had lapsed. The appellant challenged this decision by way of cassation, and the respondents submitted a memorandum requesting the dismissal of the appeal. When the appeal was presented to this court in chambers, it was deemed worthy of consideration, and a session was scheduled for its review.

Whereas the appellant, in the first ground of appeal, faults the challenged decision for violating the law, deficiency in reasoning, and flawed inference. It ruled that the right to appeal had lapsed based on the last part of Article 209/2 of the Civil Procedure Law, which is a flawed inference, as the enforcement dispute is substantive and not temporary. The objection writ is printed on a template titled 'Substantive Objection Writ,' and a checkmark is placed in the 'Substantive Objection Request' box. As long as the court has brought in the person named ....., this confirms the court addressed the substance, moving it beyond summary disputes and into a substantive dispute. The court also questioned the summoned party about the subject of the executory instrument and the reason for its issuance, which constitutes an examination of the instrument's validity for execution. Furthermore, the operative part of the judgment was a substantive ruling. Additionally, the period for appealing a substantive objection is 30 days, not 10 days, which renders the challenged decision defective and warrants its cassation.

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Commercial Court Registry

Judgment Annex No. 2025-1191 - Commercial - M-R-Q-A-Z 2025-1191 - Commercial - M-R-Q-A-Z

Date: 17/12/2025 AD

Whereas this plea is unfounded, as the legislator has entrusted the execution judge exclusively - according to the text of the first paragraph of Article 207 of the Civil Procedure Law - with the exception of real estate ownership lawsuits, to execute the executory instrument and to decide on all substantive and temporary execution disputes in an urgent capacity. The judge is also competent to issue judgments, decisions, and orders related thereto. The text of Article 161 of the same law stipulates that the period for appeal is (30) thirty days unless the law provides otherwise, and the period is (10) ten days for urgent matters. Since the judgment issued by the execution judge in the objection, which is the subject of the appeal under review, was issued in an urgent capacity in a substantive execution dispute, the appeal period for that judgment is ten days from the date of its issuance if it was in person, or from the date of its notification to the party against whom it was issued if it was in their absence. As such, and as is evident from the papers, the respondents filed objection No. 235 of 2025 in execution case No. 6660 of 2024 for the execution of Abu Dhabi cheques, in which the competent judge issued his judgment in person on 25/09/2025 in a substantive execution dispute, accepting the objection in form and, in substance, permanently closing the execution file, which entails the cancellation of all enforcement decisions and their resulting effects. Therefore, the appeal period for this judgment is ten working days, as it was issued in an execution matter. This period begins to run from the day following the issuance of the decision on 26/09/2025, as it was in person. The last day for its appeal is Monday, 06/10/2025, with the preceding day, Sunday, 05/10/2025, being a holiday. It was established that the appellant did not file their appeal until 15/10/2025 - that is, after the expiry of the (10) working days prescribed as the appeal period. Thus, their appeal was filed outside the legally prescribed period. The penalty prescribed by law is the forfeiture of the right to appeal, which is a matter of public order that the court must apply of its own accord. This is what the judgment must decide. Since the challenged decision based its ruling on the forfeiture of the right to appeal for being filed outside the legally specified period, it has correctly applied the law. This renders the plea baseless and worthy of dismissal, without the need to examine the remaining grounds of the appeal.

For these reasons

The Court has ruled:

To dismiss the appeal and order the appellant to pay the fees, expenses, and a sum of one thousand dirhams for the respondents' attorney's fees, and ordered the confiscation of the security deposit.

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Commercial Court Registry

Judgment Annex No. 2025-1191 - Commercial - M-R-Q-A-Z 2025-1191 - Commercial - M-R-Q-A-Z

Date: 17/12/2025 AD

Unofficial Digital Copy