- The admission, whether judicial or non-judicial, is the person’s recognition of his right owed to others, with the intention of considering such right fixed and exemption of the creditor from the proof thereof, provided that the admitted right is certain.

- The admitter shall be aware of the purpose of his admission and shall be bound by the same and consider it as argument and shall be aware that his litigant will be exempt from presenting any evidence. The admission shall not be divided, and the Court shall take it in whole into consideration or reject it.

- Every defence made by the litigant before the Trial Court shall entail change of opinion in the lawsuit. The Court shall take it in consideration in its ruling reasons, otherwise its judgment shall be deficient in reasoning and shall be considered as violating the right of meritorious defence.

- Example of defective reasoning.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and the rest of the documents - the Respondent filed a lawsuit no. 1661 of 2019 (Workers, Partial) in Sharjah, against the Appellant requesting the judgment to compel it to pay his labour entitlements, represented by the following:

1- Late salaries of AED 14,500.

2- Annual leave pay of AED 7,500.

3- Payment in lieu of notice: AED 15,000.

4- Compensation for unfair dismissal: AED 45,000.

5- End-of-Service Gratuity: AED 179,500.

6- Reward for achieving the establishment’s objectives: AED 102,000.

7- Reward promised by the Chairman of the Board of Directors upon termination of service: AED 500,000 and return tickets to the home country for him, his wife and five children, along with legal interest of 12% from the date of claim until full payment, based on the fact that it terminated his work and refused to pay him his above-mentioned entitlements without reason, which forced him to file the lawsuit.

After the response aiming to dismiss the case, the Court of First Instance ruled, at the hearing of 12/06/2019, to compel the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of AED 254,210 for his labour entitlements and a return ticket to his home country upon cancellation or abandonment, with a legal interest of 4% from the date of filing the labour complaint on 11/03/2019 until full settlement of all claims, except for compensation for unfair dismissal, starting from the date this judgment becomes final, and to reject the remaining claims; The Plaintiff appealed this judgment under appeal no. 1218 of 2019 and the Defendant appealed it under no. 1489 of 2019. At the hearing of 17/11/2019, the Court of Appeal ruled to direct decisive oath to the original Appellant and the collateral Respondent, according to the form proposed by the Court. The owner of the establishment requested to amend the form of the decisive oath directed to him by the Respondent concerning the promise to hand him over an amount of AED 5,000,000, as his promise was conditional on the fact that the Respondent does not receive incentives without his knowledge and the Court did not see a reason to amend the same in the required form. After feedback, the Court of Appeal ruled, at the hearing of 15/12/2010, as follows:

First: In the original appeal, to amend the appealed judgment in the part related to the promise of reward and to compel the original Respondent to pay to the Appellant an amount of five hundred thousand Dirhams and to prove the assignment of the original Appellant in the part related to the reward of the establishment’s objectives for the year 2018, and to confirm it otherwise. To compel the original Respondent to pay the proper fees and expenses in addition to an amount of AED 1,000 for the attorney’s fees.

Second: In the collateral appeal, to reject the latter and confirm the appealed judgment, and to compel the filer thereof to pay expenses.

The Appellant appealed this judgment in cassation with the current appeal. Whereas the appeal in cassation was presented to this Court through a Council Chamber, it deemed it is important to be considered so it specified a hearing for the consideration thereof. The Respondent submitted a plea requesting thereby to dismiss the appeal in cassation for not being based on a legal or realistic ground.

Whereas the Appellant in cassation objects to the contested judgment for violating the Law, miscarrying justice, being deficient in reasoning and flawed in inference, in addition to violating the right of meritorious defence, as it ruled to compel the owner thereof to pay the amount of five hundred thousand Dirhams, based on his admission, without realising that this admission was based on a condition, which is that the Respondent should not have obtained incentives without his knowledge. He adhered to his right to amend the decisive oath directed to him according to the true facts of the lawsuit. The contested judgment had rejected this oath in an irrevocable manner based on his simple admission, while his admission was described as dependent on a condition that compelled the Court to take it in full into consideration or to reject it, and the Court did not enable him to prove the achievement of the precluding condition, which is the disbursement of financial incentives by the Respondent from the company without his knowledge, which is an impediment for the promise to settle the promised amount. Whereas the contested judgment neglected his above-mentioned defence then it violated the Law and the right of defence and is flawed in inference and deficient in reasoning, then it shall be reversed.

Whereas this objection is valid, as the admission, whether judicial or non-judicial, is the person’s recognition of his right owed to others, with the intention of considering such right fixed and exemption of the creditor from the proof thereof.