⚖️ Jurisdictional Dispute Over Inheritance Revenue: Commercial Court vs. Estates Judge

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation overturned a Court of Appeal judgment, ruling that commercial courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning the revenue of an inherited property among heirs. The court clarified that such matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Estates Judge as stipulated by Federal Law No. 41 of 2024 on Personal Status.

📋 Case Background and Procedural History

The case originated when the First Respondent (on behalf of herself and as guardian of her minor son) filed a lawsuit (No. 445 of 2025, Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of First Instance) against the Appellants and other heirs. She sought payment of AED 1,600,000, representing her and her son's share of the revenue from a property left by the deceased, who passed away on December 25, 2022.

The Appellants managed the property, and the Respondent claimed they had deprived her and her son of their rightful income. After an expert was appointed and submitted a report, the Respondent amended her claim to demand AED 2,088,920 for herself and AED 2,188,085 for her minor son.

The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the Respondent, ordering the Appellants to pay the requested amounts with 5% annual interest. The Appellants appealed this decision (Appeal No. 1486 of 2025), but the Court of Appeal upheld the initial judgment. Subsequently, the Appellants escalated the matter to the Court of Cassation.

🔍 Appellant's Argument and Legal Grounds

The Appellants' primary ground for cassation was a violation of law, specifically concerning jurisdictional competence. They argued that the Commercial Court was not the competent court to hear the dispute. They contended that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the Estates Judge, citing Article 5, Paragraph 2 of Federal Law No. 41 of 2024 concerning Personal Status. This article grants the Estates Judge jurisdiction over all disputes related to estates, including any civil, real estate, or commercial claims arising from the estate among heirs and guardians.

⚖️ Court of Cassation's Reasoning and Decision

The Court of Cassation found the Appellants' argument to be valid and well-founded. The court's reasoning was based on the following key points:

• Public Order: Jurisdictional competence is a matter of public order. Citing Article 87 of the Civil Procedure Law, the court noted that a plea of lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and the court can address it on its own initiative.

• Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Estates Judge: The court referenced Article 5 of Federal Law No. 41 of 2024 on Personal Status, which explicitly states that the Estates Judge is competent to hear: "all disputes related to the inventory, liquidation, or division of its assets among the heirs, and any civil, real estate, or commercial lawsuit arising from or connected to the estate concerning its ownership, liquidation, or any of its affairs among the heirs, guardians, and the like."

• Nature of the Dispute: The core of the lawsuit was the distribution of revenue from an inherited property whose ownership is still jointly held by the heirs. This falls directly within the scope of disputes over estate affairs, as defined by the aforementioned law.

• Void Proceedings: Since the Commercial Court of First Instance lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, its judgment was void. This nullity extended to the Court of Appeal's judgment, which upheld the void ruling.

⚡ Final Verdict

Based on its analysis, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation ruled as follows:

1. Quashed the appealed judgment.

2. Referred the case to the competent Estates Judge for adjudication.

3. Ordered the First Respondent (on behalf of herself and her ward) to pay all court fees and expenses, in addition to AED 1,000 in attorney's fees for the Appellants.

4. Ordered the return of the appeal security deposit to the Appellants.