Dubai Court of Cassation Ruling on Inadmissibility of Commercial Appeal Due to Vague Grounds in Statement of Appeal

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 hearing held on 13-08-2026 at the premises of the Court of Cassation in Dubai,

In Cassation Commercial Appeal No. 1887 of 2026 Commercial Cassation,

Appellant:
A. A. L. D.

Respondents:

1. T. M.

2. W. Kh. A. F.

3. M. K. M. A. Sh.

Challenged Ruling:
Rendered in Appeal No. 134/2026 Commercial Appeal dated 11-03-2026.

The Court Rendered the Following Judgment:

After reviewing the case files, hearing the summary report prepared and read in the deliberation chamber by the reporting judge, Yahya Al-Tayyeb Abu Shoura, and after deliberation; whereas the cassation appeal has satisfied all formal procedural requirements;

And whereas the facts—as apparent from the challenged judgment and all other case records—are summarized in that the First Respondent (... F.Z.E. / LLC) filed before the Dubai Court of First Instance Lawsuit No. 3602 of 2025 Minor Commercial against the Second and Third Respondents (.... LLC and ........) requesting a judgment ordering them jointly and severally to pay an amount of (200,000) UAE Dirhams along with statutory interest at the rate of 9% annually from the maturity date on 11-10-2024

until full settlement, and alternatively, compelling them to present the original compensation agreement dated 10-02-2025 bearing their signatures, and referring it to the forensic laboratory to determine whether its execution date preceded or followed the revocation date of Power of Attorney No. 97877/1/2025 dated 16-01-2025 on 20-02-2025, which the first defendant claimed that the second defendant concluded with her on behalf of the plaintiff, acknowledging that the disputed cheque was issued to her by way of compensation, and holding both defendants liable for expenses, on the grounds that the plaintiff loaned the first defendant an amount of (200,000) UAE Dirhams by bank cheque No. (.) drawn on her account at (Bank ...) due on 10-10-2024, the proceeds of which were collected on 11-10-2024, but the first defendant wrongfully refrained from repaying the loan under the pretext of entitlement to its value as compensation under the said agreement, which prompted the filing of the lawsuit.

At the hearing of 15-12-2025, the court ruled dismissing the lawsuit. The plaintiff (... F.Z.E. / LLC) appealed this judgment via Appeal No. 134 of 2026 Commercial. At the hearing of 11-03-2026, the appellate court ruled to set aside the appealed judgment and rendered a fresh ruling ordering the appellee (...... LLC) to pay the appellant (... F.Z.E. / LLC) the sum of (200,000) UAE Dirhams plus statutory interest at the rate of 5% annually from the date of judicial demand on 26-09-2025 until full settlement, along with costs, and dismissed all other claims and confiscated the security deposit.

The Attorney General of the Emirate of Dubai challenged this ruling by the present cassation appeal pursuant to Article (176) of the Civil Procedure Law of 2022, by an appeal statement deposited with the Case Management Department of this Court on 03-08-2026, requesting the reversal of the judgment and deciding on the substance of the appeal by ruling its inadmissibility, on the grounds of violating Article (164-1) of the Civil Procedure Law of 2022, as amended by Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2025.

And whereas the cassation appeal was presented in the deliberation chamber, the Court deemed, pursuant to Article (176-2) of the Civil Procedure Law of 2022, to issue the judgment in today's hearing;

And whereas the cassation appeal is based on a single ground wherein the Appellant in his official capacity argues that the challenged judgment violated the law and erred in its application by overturning the first-instance dismissal of the lawsuit and ruling anew ordering the Second Respondent (... LLC) to pay the First Respondent (..... F.Z.E. / LLC) the sum of (200,000) UAE Dirhams and statutory interest, despite the fact that the First Respondent had challenged the appealed judgment dismissing the lawsuit under Appeal No. 134 of 2026 Commercial by means of a summarized statement of appeal asserting that the appealed judgment was issued "defective, contrary to law and contrary to what is established in the records, and in violation of the right of defense, while reserving the right to submit an explanatory memorandum detailing the grounds of appeal

and grounds of defense at the first hearing set for its consideration", in violation of Article (164, Paragraph 1) of Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2025 amending certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Law No. (42) of 2022, which obligates the appellant to set forth and detail in the statement of appeal all grounds and challenges against the appealed judgment in detail, necessitating the appellate court to rule the appeal inadmissible due to its relation to public order. However, the appellate court disregarded this principle, addressed the substance of the appeal, and ruled on it, rendering its judgment tainted by a violation and erroneous application of the law, which warrants its quashing and ruling in the subject of the appeal as inadmissible.

And whereas this plea is well-founded; as it is settled in the jurisprudence of the General Plenary of the Court of Cassation in Decision No. (1) of 2026 regarding the legal interpretation of Article (164) of the Civil Procedure Law of 2022, as substituted by Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2025 concerning the essential particulars that must be included in a statement of appeal, that the appellant must set forth in detail in the statement of appeal the grounds of challenging the appealed judgment, and that this requirement is not fulfilled by citing generalized phrases or ambiguous grounds such as error in the application of the law or deficiency in reasoning without identifying the precise nature of the error in applying the law and the defect vitiating the appealed judgment; otherwise, the appeal is deemed devoid of grounds, the sanction for which is inadmissibility. It is also established—according to the settled jurisprudence of this Court—that litigation procedures pertain to public order, which the court addresses of its own motion.

Whereas the established facts in the case records demonstrate that the First Respondent challenged the appealed judgment dismissing its claim under Appeal No. 134 of 2026 Commercial by means of an appeal statement titled "Summary Grounds of Appeal", based on error in applying the law, deficiency in reasoning, flawed inference, violation of the right to defense, and contradiction of the case records; and whereas these grounds were generalized, unsubstantiated, and devoid of any detailed specification of what allegedly constituted a violation of law, error in application, deficiency in reasoning, flawed inference, violation of the right of defense, and contradiction of the records, in clear deviation from the ruling of the General Plenary of the Court of Cassation in Decision No. (1) of 2026 regarding the legal interpretation of Article (164) of the Civil Procedure Law of 2022 as substituted by Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2025 regarding the essential particulars that a statement of appeal must contain by detailing the grounds and challenges against the appealed judgment, which demonstrates that the statement of appeal submitted by the First Respondent challenging the appealed judgment was devoid of the legally prescribed grounds of appeal necessary for its formal admissibility, obligating the challenged court

to rule the appeal formally inadmissible, since procedural litigation rules pertain to public order, warranting the reversal of the judgment. Since the subject matter of the appeal is fit for determination, and it is established that the appellant registered Appeal No. 134 of 2026 Commercial by a summary statement of appeal that did not contain detailed grounds of appeal in violation of Article (164) of the Civil Procedure Law of 2022 as substituted by Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2025, thereby establishing that it is devoid of the legally prescribed grounds of appeal for its formal admissibility, the Court must rule the appeal inadmissible in form and order the appellant to bear the costs.

For These Reasons, the Court Ruled:

To quash the challenged judgment, and in the subject of Appeal No. 134 of 2026 Commercial, to declare the appeal inadmissible in form, to order the appellant to pay the costs and an amount of one thousand UAE Dirhams (AED 1,000) as attorney fees to the first appellee, and to confiscate the security deposit.