In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Saud bin Saqr bin Mohammed Al Qasimi, Ruler of the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah

Ras Al Khaimah Court

In the public session held on 09.06.2026 at the headquarters of the Ras Al Khaimah Court of Cassation

In Case No. 17 / 2026 Commercial Cassation

Appellant:

Respondent:

Appealed Judgment: Issued in Appeal No. 31/2026, Commercial Appeal, dated 19.02.2026

---

The Following Judgment Was Issued

After reviewing the documents, hearing the report recited by Judge Hisham Refaat Abdel Sabour, the arguments, and after deliberation. The appeal has met the formal requirements.

The facts, as apparent from the appealed judgment and all other documents, show that the appellant filed Case No. 859 of 2025 Commercial Ras Al Khaimah against the two respondents and others (not parties to this appeal), seeking a judgment—according to his final requests—primarily:

1. To establish his partnership with the second respondent at a rate of 70% of the ownership of the land located in the area of [details redacted], with title deed numbers for the years 2008, 2008, and 2008, with a total area of 43,596 square feet.

2. To compel the competent authority (Municipality Department - Land Registration Section) to amend the ownership deeds to be registered in the name of the appellant and the second respondent according to the determined ownership percentages for each.

3. To compel the competent authority to issue new ownership deeds for the land according to the aforementioned ownership percentages.

4. To compel the respondents jointly or severally to pay him compensation of AED 200,000, with legal interest at a rate of 9% annually from the date the judgment becomes final until full payment.

Alternatively:

1. To compel the aforementioned parties jointly or severally to pay him an amount of AED 1,525,860, being the value of his share in the aforementioned land.

---

And legal interest at a rate of 9% annually from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment.

2. To compel them jointly or severally to pay him compensation of AED 200,000, and legal interest at a rate of 9% annually from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment.

In his statement of claim, he stated that on 17/07/2008, he deposited an amount of AED 700,000 into the account of the first respondent company at the Islamic Bank, for the second respondent and others, as partners and representatives of the company, to invest this amount on his behalf in the business of buying and selling land in the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. However, they purchased the disputed land and registered it in the name of the second respondent alone without including the appellant's name. From that date until the filing of the lawsuit, the appellant did not receive any profits, nor was he provided with account statements showing profits and losses despite his requests. He therefore filed the lawsuit. The judge supervising the case management office appointed an expert. After the expert submitted his report, the case was referred to the court, which ruled:

• First: To not accept the lawsuit against the first respondent company and another for being filed against parties without legal capacity.

• Second: To establish the appellant's partnership at a rate of 70% in the ownership of the land, which is the subject of title deeds numbers for the year 2008, located in the area of [details redacted].

• Third: To compel the second respondent to pay the appellant an amount of AED 50,000 as moral damages, with legal interest at a rate of 9% annually from the date the judgment becomes final until full payment, and rejected all other claims.

The second respondent appealed this judgment before the Ras Al Khaimah Court of Appeal in Appeal No. 31 of 2026 Commercial. The appellant also appealed it before the same court in Appeal No. 36 of 2026 Commercial. The two appeals were joined for correlation, and on 19/02/2026, the court ruled:

• First: In the matter of Appeal No. 31 of 2026 Commercial Ras Al Khaimah, to amend the appealed judgment in its second clause to establish the appellant's partnership for a common share of 12.5% in the disputed land, subject of the title deeds for the year 2008 with their respective nine-digit numbers, and upheld the rest.

• Second: In the matter of Appeal No. 36 of 2026 Commercial Ras Al Khaimah, to reject it.

The appellant challenged this judgment by way of cassation. As the appeal was presented to this court in chambers, a session was set for its hearing, and the judgment was then issued. Whereas it is established in the jurisprudence of this court that the Court of Cassation, as well as the litigants or the public prosecution, may raise grounds related to public order. The text in the first paragraph of Article (23) of Law No. 11 of 2021 regarding the Real Estate Registry in the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah states that 'All dispositions that establish, transfer, change, or extinguish a real property right, as well as final judgments confirming any of this, must be recorded in the Real Estate Registry.'"

---

And the text in the first paragraph of Article (28) of the same law states that 'Lawsuits related to a real property right, or to the validity or enforcement of a registrable disposition, and pre-emption lawsuits must include in their petitions a request to amend the data in the registry, and the lawsuit shall not be accepted until after the submission of a certificate indicating that its contents have been annotated in the registry.' This indicates that the legislator has mandated that the plaintiff take a specific action, which is to include in the lawsuit's statement of claim an additional request to amend the data in the real estate registry and to annotate the contents of the claims in the registry, and to submit a certificate proving this annotation if the lawsuit relates to a real property right, or to the validity or enforcement of a registrable disposition, which are real estate entitlement lawsuits, lawsuits for recognition or denial of a real property right, and lawsuits related to the validity, nullity, or enforcement of registrable dispositions that establish, transfer, change, or extinguish an original real property right, as well as pre-emption lawsuits. Otherwise, the lawsuit with these claims will be inadmissible. This is because the purpose of organizing the real estate registry law is to clarify all dispositions on registered properties to stabilize ownership and prevent disputes, which implies the necessity of annotating lawsuits filed against the data recorded in that registry.

This being the case, and as the appellant had filed his initial lawsuit with the following primary claims: (1) To establish his partnership with the second respondent at a rate of 70% of the ownership of the land located in the area of [details redacted], subject of title deeds numbers for the years 2008, 2008, and 2008, with a total area of 43,596 square feet. (2) To compel the competent authority (Municipality Department - Land Registration Section) to amend the ownership deeds to be registered in the name of the appellant and the second respondent according to the determined ownership percentages for each. (3) To compel the competent authority to issue new ownership deeds for the land according to the aforementioned ownership percentages. (4) To compel the respondents jointly or severally to pay him compensation of AED 200,000, with legal interest at a rate of 9% annually from the date the judgment becomes final until full payment. And alternatively: (1) To compel the aforementioned parties jointly or severally to pay him an amount of AED 1,525,860, being the value of his share in the aforementioned land, with legal interest at a rate of 9% annually from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment. (2) To compel them jointly or severally to pay him compensation of AED 200,000, with legal interest at a rate of 9% annually from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment. The first of the primary claims relates to a real property right, from which the other primary claims branch and are linked. The law required annotation of this claim in the real estate registry and the submission of a certificate proving this annotation. As the appellant did not submit proof of this annotation, and the case file is devoid of anything proving its occurrence, the lawsuit is inadmissible with respect to the primary claims. Since this ruling is limited to inadmissibility without addressing the substance of those claims, it is precluded from ruling on the alternative claims.

---

Ruling on the Alternative Claims

If the appealed judgment contradicts this view, it has violated the law and erred in its application, which necessitates its cassation with remand pursuant to Article (186) of the Civil Procedure Law, and ruling the case inadmissible as stated in the operative part of the judgment.

---

Therefore

The Court has ruled:

1. First: To quash the appealed judgment, and to compel the second respondent to pay the fees and expenses, and to return the security deposit.

2. Second: In the matter of Appeals No. 31 and 36 of 2026 Commercial Ras Al Khaimah, to set aside the appealed judgment and to rule the lawsuit inadmissible, and to compel the appellant in the second appeal to pay the costs of both levels of litigation.