- The text of the local law does not repeal the federal law, and the local law shall be construed in a manner that aligns with the provisions of the federal law when interpretation is necessary.

- Pursuant to Article 102 of the Constitution, the Union shall establish one or more Federal Courts of First Instance. These courts will convene in the permanent capital of the Union or in certain emirate capitals to exercise judicial jurisdiction within their designated areas.

- When the Constitution confers judicial jurisdiction upon the federal judiciary, any attempt to divest this jurisdiction is impermissible without explicit constitutional provisions.

- Article 102 of the Constitution indicates the legislator's intent that disputes involving the Union, irrespective of their nature (civil, commercial, or administrative), are exclusively within the purview of the federal judiciary.

- In determining the court's jurisdiction over cases involving the Union, the key criterion is the fundamental character of the opposing party as a public entity, i.e., the state. This criterion serves as the sole basis for establishing the court's jurisdiction.

- An illustrative example of a judgment that erred in the application of the law.

Whereas in the facts - as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and all other documents - the appellant, represented by [Appellant's Name], initiated legal proceedings under Suit No. 2248 of 2019 in the Sharjah Partial Civil Court against the respondent. The appellant sought a judgment compelling the respondent to settle an outstanding amount of 6827.29 dirham, inclusive of expenses. The appellant, identified as a government entity responsible for providing water and electricity services across all emirates of the state, alleged that the respondent had applied to establish an account for the activation of a consumer service, and upon approval of the request, an amount became due and payable by the respondent. However, despite numerous requests for payment in accordance with the bill, the respondent persistently refused to settle the amount, prompting the appellant to initiate legal action by filing the aforementioned lawsuit.

The Court of First Instance, in its session dated 26/9/2019, determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the case and consequently referred it to the courts of Ras Al Khaimah for adjudication. In response to this decision, the appellant filed an appeal, denoted as Appeal No. 1902 of 2019. However, in the session held on 25/2/2019, the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and confirmed the appealed ruling. The rationale behind this affirmation was that the defendant's domicile falls within the jurisdiction of the Ras Al Khaimah Courts Department.

Undeterred, the appellant further contested this decision through the current appeal in cassation. Upon submission of the cassation to this court, which convened in a Council Chamber, a session was scheduled to deliberate on the merits.

Whereas the appellant objects to the contested ruling, citing violations of the law, errors in its application, and flaws in inference. The ruling confirmed the appealed ruling, asserting that the Sharjah Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction to hear the case and identifying the Ras Al Khaimah Court of First Instance as the appropriate jurisdiction. The justification provided was that jurisdiction over civil and commercial disputes should be based on the court of the defendant’s domicile, thus contravening the stipulations of Article 102 of the Constitution. Consequently, this contradiction renders the contested ruling defective, warranting its reversal.

Whereas the objection holds merits, since the established principle dictates that text of a local law does not repeal the federal law, and

Article 102 of the State Constitution stipulates as follows:

The Union shall have one or more Union Courts of the First Instance which shall sit in the permanent capital of the Union or in the capitals of some of the Emirates, in order to exercise the judicial powers within the sphere of their jurisdiction in the following cases:-

1- Civil, commercial and administrative disputes between the Union and individuals whether the Union is plaintiff or defendant.

2- Crimes committed within the boundaries of the permanent capital of the Union, excepting such matters as are reserved for the Supreme Court of the Union under Article 99 of this Constitution.

3- Personal status actions, civil actions, commercial actions and other actions between individuals which arise in the permanent capital of the Union.

Given the circumstances, and whereas the appellant, being a federal government entity established in accordance with Federal Law No. 31 of 1999, the lawsuit falls under the purview of the federal judiciary. On the other hand, the Ras Al Khaimah courts are local judicial entities and, as such, lack jurisdiction to hear cases in which the Union is a party. The appropriate jurisdiction for such cases lies with one of the Union’s courts, and in the present instance, it pertains to the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance. Since the ruling disregarded this consideration, it has violated the law and erred in its application. Such a violation warrants the reversal of the ruling with remand.