United Arab Emirates

Union Supreme Court

Appeal No. 27 of 2026 Civil

Wednesday Session of March 4, 2026

Presided over by Judge Shihab Abdul Rahman Al Hammadi, President of the Chamber

And the membership of Judges Abdullah Boubaker Al-Siri and Jumaa Ibrahim Mohammed Al-Otaibi

()

Principles of Evidence

(1-8) Evidence "Proof by Writing: Nature and Authority of an Official Document" "Proof by Admission" "Authority of Correspondence in Evidence" "Authority of Electronic Evidence". Court "Trial Court: Obligation to consider the evidence of the case". Defense "Substantive Defense: Effect of failure to respond to it".

1. Official Document. Its nature. Failure to meet the legal requirements renders it a private document, provided it is signed by the concerned parties.

2. Official Document. It is conclusive evidence against everyone regarding what was recorded by its creator unless its forgery is proven through legally prescribed methods, and it is evidence against the concerned parties regarding what they stated therein unless the contrary is proven.

3. Correspondence. Signed by its sender has the authority of a private document and is binding on the sender unless it is proven that they did not send it themselves or through another person.

4. Electronic Evidence. Its nature. Any data or information that is technically processed and stored on a digital medium provided it is retrievable and understandable. This includes records, documents, signatures, seals, and electronic messages of all kinds.

5. Admission. An explicit or implicit acknowledgment by word or writing. Proof of a non-judicial admission is subject to the legal rules of evidence, and it may not be proven by testimony except in cases where the law permits such proof.

6. Trial Court's Duty. The trial court must consider the evidence of the case and respond to the substantive defense. Failure to do so constitutes a deficiency.

---

United Arab Emirates

Union Supreme Court

7. Failure of a judgment to address a substantive defense raised by a party. Deficiency. The reason for this. The judgment must include what assures the reader that the court has understood the facts of the case, comprehended its elements, scrutinized the party's defense, and countered it with a sufficient response. Relying on a mere and unsubstantiated presumption that contradicts conclusive evidence divests the judgment of its legal basis.

8. The appealed judgment's failure to consider documentary evidence, including writings, electronic messages, admissions of the opposing party, and bank documents submitted by the appellant, which prove her payment of all costs for the company in question. This constitutes a deficiency in reasoning and a violation of what is established in the documents, necessitating cassation and referral.

Legal Principles

1- It is established in the Law of Evidence that an official document is one in which a public officer or a person entrusted with a public service proves what was done by him or what he received from the concerned parties, in accordance with the legal provisions and within the limits of his authority and competence. If the document does not meet the conditions mentioned in the law, it will have the authority of a private document, provided that the concerned parties have signed it with their signatures, seals, or fingerprints.

2- It is established that an official document is evidence against all persons regarding the matters recorded by its author within the scope of his mission, or which occurred in his presence from the concerned parties, unless its forgery is proven by the legally prescribed methods. The content of what any of the concerned parties mentioned in the document is evidence against him, unless the contrary is proven.

3- It is established that correspondence that is signed or whose origin is established to its sender has the authority of a private document in evidence, unless the sender proves that he did not send the message or did not authorize anyone to send it.

4- It is established - taking into account other legislation in force in the state - that any evidence derived from any data or information that is created, stored, extracted, copied, sent, communicated, or received by information technology means, on any medium, and is retrievable in an understandable form, is considered electronic evidence. Electronic evidence includes the following: electronic records, electronic documents, electronic signatures, electronic seals, and electronic correspondence, including e-mail, modern communication methods, electronic media, and any other electronic evidence.

---

United Arab Emirates

Union Supreme Court

5- It is established that an admission may be express or implied, by word or in writing, and the proof of a non-judicial admission shall be in accordance with the provisions prescribed in this law, including the impermissibility of proving it by testimony except in cases where proof by testimony is permitted.

6- It is established that the trial court must consider the evidence presented before it and must respond to the substantive defense of the parties, which may change the court's opinion in the case. If the court fails to address in its judgment the influential evidence in the dispute while the party adheres to its significance, and does not scrutinize what was presented in it in a way that shows it has grasped the reality of the case and has exhausted all its means to uncover the truth therein, its judgment shall be deemed deficient.

7- It is established that the court's failure to address a substantive defense raised by a party or its disregard for it without an acceptable reason taints the judgment with a deficiency that leads to its nullification. This is because the judgment must contain what assures the reader that the court has understood the reality, encompassed the elements of the case and the evidence presented, scrutinized the party's defense, and countered it with a sufficient and sound response. The failure to address a defense that, if correct, would change the opinion in the case, marks it with the flaw of deficiency in reasoning. A substantive defense must be addressed by the court with its due share of consideration, and it is not sufficient to merely rely on an abstract and unsubstantiated presumption, as the court's conviction must not conflict with other conclusive evidence; otherwise, it would be devoid of its legal source.

8- As this was the case, and the challenged judgment, which reinstated the annulment of the appealed judgment and rejected the claim for enforcement, while the plaintiff-appellant adhered to her request and the evidence of proof submitted in the case, including documentary evidence represented in official documents and electronic messages, and the first respondent's request to the plaintiff to pay an amount of (500,000 dirhams) to execute the guarantee and his admission in the messages that he is merely a license sponsor, and her submission of sufficient evidence that she paid all amounts related to the company's license, rent, and licensing fees, including bank deposit receipts and original checks, along with taking the supplementary oath, and the failure of the defendants to provide any evidence of their payment of the company's capital, and the failure to refer the case for investigation to confirm the appellant's evidence which was adopted by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal in the first judgment, yet the challenged judgment ignored this substantive defense and failed to examine and scrutinize it to the necessary extent, which tainted it with deficiency in reasoning and contradiction to what is established in the records.

---

United Arab Emirates

Union Supreme Court

what is established in the papers and the assessment of evidence, and based its judgment on grounds insufficient to support it, which led it to violate the law, which necessitates its cassation without the need to address the remaining grounds of appeal, with the cassation to be accompanied by referral. Given the foregoing.

The Court

Whereas the appeal has met its formal requirements.

And whereas the facts of the case, as summarized, are that the plaintiff-appellant filed lawsuit No. 1918 of 2024 Civil Ajman against the two defendants-respondents, requesting in her final submissions: primarily, a ruling on the sham ownership of the second defendant in the company / center ...... for recruitment services and the establishment of a partnership between the plaintiff and the first defendant on a fifty-fifty basis in the company, and addressing the Department of Economic Development in Ajman to transfer the company's ownership to her and the first defendant, and obliging the defendants jointly to pay her an amount of five hundred thousand dirhams (AED 500,000) as compensation for their seizure of her share in the company and obliging them jointly to return all documents, funds, and movables they embezzled from the company's headquarters. Alternatively, referring the case for investigation to prove the facts mentioned in the body of this request, and as a further alternative, appointing a financial expert in the case and obliging them jointly to pay the fees and expenses on the grounds that the first defendant is the plaintiff's uncle and she verbally agreed with him to establish a recruitment services company (a limited liability company). She proposed an office space that met the necessary requirements for the company's operation, and they agreed that the second defendant would be the company's sponsor and the other two would be equal partners. Based on their agreement, the second defendant was directed to conclude an agreement with the first defendant which includes the latter's full ownership of the company and that the second defendant would be its sponsor for an annual fee of (200,000) dirhams, to be paid in monthly installments of (16,666.70) dirhams, with a subsequent agreement to be concluded between her and the first defendant stating their equal ownership of the company. An amount of (500,000) dirhams was transferred to the second defendant's account to pay the government guarantee for the company. The company was then established and began its operations. The plaintiff paid the second defendant part of the sponsorship fee, including an amount of (75,000) dirhams, paying a total of (401,376) dirhams. She was the one who managed the company and used the checks and bank account of the ...... company for building cleaning services owned by her husband to facilitate transactions and appointed ...... as an accounts manager and ...... as an assistant operations manager for the company. Based on the first defendant's request, she convinced ...... to purchase 33% of the shares. She then verbally agreed with the first defendant to purchase his 50% share, but at the time of drafting the agreement, he exaggerated his demands, which caused her to reject the agreement. On 6/3/2024, the defendants came to the office

---

United Arab Emirates

Union Supreme Court

of the company and demanded to receive all the documents and the key to the company, while she was the one managing the company. Therefore, she claimed sham ownership of the company by the second defendant based on the concluded sponsorship agreement, and she suffered material and moral damages estimated at (500,000) dirhams due to the defendants' seizure of her share and demanded the return of all documents and funds they seized from the company. She supported her claims with the evidence mentioned in the statement of claim.

During the case management proceedings, the defendants submitted a responsive memorandum in which they concluded by challenging the authenticity of document No. (4) submitted by the plaintiff, alleging falsification of the truth in what was prepared for its proof, and requesting its referral to the Public Prosecution to take action. They argued that the agreements relied upon were unsigned and that there was no contractual relationship between them, and they adhered to the company's articles of association and its commercial license, which establish the defendant's ownership of the company.

Thereafter, the supervising judge decided to interrogate the parties, which did not take place due to the defendants' failure to appear without providing any excuse. The plaintiff appeared, stating that she would attach a statement of the amounts she had paid. The same judge then decided to appoint an expert in the case, who completed a final report.

At the session of 27/2/2025, the court of first instance ruled to oblige the first defendant to pay the plaintiff the amount of (638,916.67) dirhams and to bear the expenses, and rejected the remainder of the claims.

The defendants appealed this judgment under appeal No. 273/2025, and at the session of 25/6/2025, the Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form and, in substance, to reject it and uphold the appealed judgment.

...... (the first defendant) challenged this judgment by cassation for the first time, and at the session of 24/9/2025, the Court of Cassation ruled to quash the challenged judgment and refer the case to the same court that issued it to be heard by a different panel. At the session of 30/12/2025, the Court of Appeal ruled to annul the appealed judgment and to reject the claim.

The plaintiff challenged this judgment by the present cassation appeal, and when the appeal was presented to this court - in the consultation room - a session was scheduled for its hearing.

Whereas the appellant (the plaintiff) objects to the challenged judgment for violating the law, deficiency in reasoning, violation of what is established in the papers, flawed reasoning, and violation of the right to defense, as it once again ruled to annul the appealed judgment and reject the claim, despite the plaintiff changing the legal basis of the substantive claim while adhering to her claim from the beginning of the dispute for restitution and presenting the evidence submitted in the case, including documentary evidence represented in official documents, electronic messages, and the explicit request from the first respondent to the plaintiff to pay an amount of (500,000) dirhams to execute the guarantee and his admission in the messages that he is merely a license sponsor, and her submission of sufficient evidence that she

---

United Arab Emirates

Union Supreme Court

paid all amounts related to the company's license, rent, bank deposit receipts, original checks, and the supplementary oath, all of which prove the indebtedness of the defendants, and the failure of the defendants to provide any evidence of their payment of the company's capital, rent, or licensing fees, and the failure to refer the case for investigation to prove her claims. The challenged judgment ignored this substantive defense, which tainted it with deficiency in reasoning and violation of the right to defense, necessitating its cassation.

And whereas this argument is sound, as it is established in the Law of Evidence that an official document is one in which a public officer or a person entrusted with a public service proves what was done by him or what he received from the concerned parties, in accordance with the legal provisions and within the limits of his authority and competence. If the document does not meet the mentioned conditions, it will have the authority of a private document, provided that the concerned parties have signed it with their signatures, seals, or fingerprints. An official document is evidence against all persons regarding the matters recorded by its author within the scope of his mission, or which occurred in his presence from the concerned parties, unless its forgery is proven by the legally prescribed methods. The content of what any of the concerned parties mentioned in the document is evidence against him, unless the contrary is proven. Correspondence that is signed or whose origin is established to its sender has the authority of a private document in evidence, unless the sender proves that he did not send the message or did not authorize anyone to send it. Taking into account other legislation in force in the state, any evidence derived from any data or information that is created, stored, extracted, copied, sent, communicated, or received by information technology means, on any medium, and is retrievable in an understandable form, is considered electronic evidence. Electronic evidence includes the following: electronic records, electronic documents, electronic signatures, electronic seals, and electronic correspondence, including e-mail, modern communication methods, electronic media, and any other electronic evidence. An admission may be express or implied, by word or in writing, and the proof of a non-judicial admission shall be in accordance with the provisions prescribed in this law, including the impermissibility of proving it by testimony except in cases where proof by testimony is permitted. It is also required that the trial court must consider the evidence presented before it and must respond to the substantive defense of the parties, which may change the court's opinion in the case. If the court fails to address in its judgment the influential evidence in the dispute while the party adheres to its significance, and does not scrutinize what was presented in it in a way that shows it has grasped the reality of the case and has exhausted all its means to uncover the truth therein, its judgment shall be deemed deficient. The failure of a judgment to address a substantive defense raised by a party or its disregard for it without an acceptable reason taints the judgment with a deficiency that leads to its nullification. This is because the judgment must contain what assures the reader that the court has understood the reality, encompassed the elements of the case and the evidence presented, scrutinized the party's defense, and countered it with a sufficient and sound response. The failure to address a defense that, if correct, would change the opinion in the case, marks it with the flaw of deficiency in reasoning.

---

United Arab Emirates

Union Supreme Court

in reasoning. A substantive defense must be addressed by the court with its due share of consideration, and it is not sufficient to merely rely on an abstract and unsubstantiated presumption, as the court's conviction must not conflict with other conclusive evidence; otherwise, it would be devoid of its legal source... As this was the case, and the challenged judgment, which reinstated the annulment of the appealed judgment and rejected the claim for enforcement, while the plaintiff-appellant adhered to her request and the evidence of proof submitted in the case, including documentary evidence represented in official documents, electronic messages, and the first respondent's request to the plaintiff to pay an amount of (500,000) dirhams to execute the guarantee and his admission in the messages that he is merely a license sponsor, and her submission of sufficient evidence that she paid all amounts related to the company's license, rent, and licensing fees, including bank deposit receipts and original checks, along with taking the supplementary oath, and the failure of the defendants to provide any evidence of their payment of the company's capital, and the failure to refer the case for investigation to confirm the appellant's evidence which was adopted by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal in the first judgment, yet the challenged judgment ignored this substantive defense and failed to examine and scrutinize it to the necessary extent, which tainted it with deficiency in reasoning and contradiction to what is established in the papers, the assessment of evidence, and based its judgment on grounds insufficient to support it, which led it to violate the law, which necessitates its cassation without the need to address the remaining grounds of appeal, with the cassation to be accompanied by referral.