- Conflict of jurisdiction. Cases thereof. A conflict may arise between a federal judiciary and a judicial body in another emirate, or among judicial bodies within any emirate when each asserts jurisdiction over a case, abstains from considering it, or issues a ruling that contradicts the other. The legal basis for addressing such conflicts is established in Articles 33/9, 10, and 60 of Federal Law No. 10 of 1973 concerning the Federal Supreme Court.

The Federal Supreme Court holds jurisdiction to adjudicate conflicts of jurisdiction with the primary objective of resolving disputes arising from the implementation of final and contradictory rulings issued by diverse authorities.

- A contradiction between two final rulings arises when the contested judgment contradicts a previous judgment that has acquired the force of res judicata, in relation to a matter over which a dispute emerged between the two parties involved, and the truth of the matter was conclusively established between them. This establishment is typically articulated in the operative part of the previous judgment or its reasons directly related to the operative judgment.

- An example of acceptance of the conflict of jurisdiction lawsuit predicated on the presence of a contradiction between the two legal decisions, which involve common subject matter, cause, and parties, and have become final.

Whereas in the facts of the case - as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the remaining documents and motions submitted therein - the plaintiff initiated the current dispute by submitting an electronic statement of claim to the case management office of this court on 13/4/2021. The essence of the lawsuit is a request to annul the ruling issued in Case No. 3141 of 2018, Civil Plenary Sharjah, based on its contradiction with the final and conclusive ruling rendered in Case No. 132 of 2018, Civil Plenary Dubai. The plaintiff's claim is rooted in an agreement entered into on 25/9/2011 with the second and third defendants, acting as buyers. Pursuant to this agreement, the plaintiff and his partner sold 100% of the shares of [Name] LLC, the "fourth defendant," for a total amount of 103 million dirhams, with the provision that the payment be made in instalments. The plaintiff contends that due to the second and third defendants' failure to fulfil the instalment payments, Arbitration Case No. 80 of 2016 was initiated before the Dubai International Arbitration Authority, which resulted in an arbitration award dated 1/11/2017. This award terminated the aforementioned sales agreement and mandated the second and third defendants to pay a compensation amount of five million dirhams. Subsequently, the plaintiff initiated Suit No. 132 of 2018, Dubai Civil Plenary, with the aim of securing the ratification of the arbitration award mentioned earlier. During the course of this lawsuit, the first defendant intervened, asserting the validity and enforceability of the contract for the sale and transfer of shares of the fourth defendant, as per the agreement between him and the second and third defendants. On 10/7/2018, the Dubai Court issued a ruling to ratify the arbitration award and rejected the first defendant's aggressive intervention due to lack of validity and proof. This ruling was upheld in Appeal No. 1084 of 2018, Dubai Civil Appeal, and ultimately became final following the decision in Appeal No. 380 of 2019, Dubai Cassation, which rejected the appeal. However, the first defendant, acting as the director of the fourth respondent, filed Suit No. 3141 of 2018, Civil Sharjah, against the second and third defendants. In this lawsuit, he sought the validity and enforceability of the sales contract dated 16/10/2016, which involved the sale of the entire shares of the fourth defendant company to them. Importantly, he did not sue the plaintiff in the previous case. The Sharjah Court of First Instance issued a ruling on 30/8/2018 in favour of the first defendant, confirming the validity and enforceability of the sales contract.

This ruling contradicted the initial ruling issued by the Dubai Court of First Instance in Case No. 132 of 2018 Dubai Civil, which rejected the request for the validity and enforceability of the sales contract dated 16/10/2016 and had the authority of res judicata because it was final and conclusive.

Recognising the contradiction between these two rulings, the plaintiff invoked Article 33 of Law No. 10 of 1973 regarding the Federal Supreme Court to file his claim. The plaintiff submitted copies of his claim along with supporting documents to clarify the contentious legal provisions. Upon submission of the case for pleading in the session held on 28/6/2021, the first and fourth defendants submitted a reply memorandum, urging the court not to accept the case. During the mentioned session, the plaintiff's attorney, representing him, appeared before the court. The court directed her to provide evidence demonstrating the finality of the ruling issued in Case No. 3141 of 2018, Civil - Sharjah. The case was then adjourned to the final pleading session scheduled for 5/7/2021. In the subsequent session, it was ascertained that the plaintiff's attorney had presented evidence confirming the finality of the aforementioned ruling. Remarkably, none of the opponents attended this session. Consequently, the court decided to suspend the proceedings, deferring the adjudication to the present session.

Whereas it is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that Article 33 of Federal Law No. 10 of 1973, pertaining to the Federal Supreme Court, specifically in its paragraphs 9 and 10, establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court to decide on conflicts of jurisdiction. This jurisdiction extends to conflicts between the federal judiciary and judicial bodies in the emirates, as well as conflicts between judicial bodies in different emirates or within a single emirate. Article 60 of the same law further elucidates the forms in which conflicts of jurisdiction may manifest. It clarifies that a conflict arises when the involved bodies do not collectively abandon consideration of a case, or when all parties abandon their consideration, or when contradictory rulings are issued. In such instances, the appropriate course of action is to submit a request to appoint the competent court, and this request is directed to the Federal Supreme Court. The interpretation of these legal provisions indicates that a conflict of jurisdiction does not arise unless there is a dispute between a federal judiciary and a judicial body in another emirate, or among judicial bodies within a single emirate. This dispute may manifest when each entity claims jurisdiction over a case, abandons consideration, or issues conflicting rulings.

Given the aforementioned circumstances and in light of the contravention of Ruling No. 3141 of 2018 - Civil Plenary Sharjah - regarding the binding force of res judicata in the ruling issued in Case No. 132 of 2018 - Civil Plenary Dubai, the court hereby decides to accept the dispute claim. The court further decides not to rely on Ruling No. 3141 of 2018, Civil Sharjah, as explicitly articulated in the operative part of this decision.