Petition No

(1) Notice serving “Methods of notification: serving the notice at the elected domicile.”

Effecting notification directly to the individual either at their place of residence, domicile, or through their designated agent, is deemed valid, irrespective of the recipient's refusal to receive the notice.

(2, 3) Petition for review, “cases: fraud.” Notice serving “Methods of notification: serving the notice at the elected domicile.”

(2) In the context of seeking a review, fraud, as a basis, occurs when the opposing party deceives the court and is subject to specific conditions.

(3) Contending that there was fraud on the part of the respondent by notifying the petitioners at the lawyer's office, notwithstanding it not being their elected domicile, is considered invalid. This assertion is rebutted ‌by the fact that a power of attorney was duly issued to the lawyer by the representative of the heirs of the deceased. This power of attorney holds validity before all courts, thereby establishing the lawyer's office as the chosen domicile for the purpose of serving necessary documents. This determination is grounded in the provisions of Article 56 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code, as well as Article 6 of Cabinet Decision No. 57 of 2018 - as amended - on the Issuance of the Implementing Regulation of the aforementioned law.

(4) Ruling “Validity of rulings: the binding force of res judicata.”

The petitioner's objection to the respondent's grounds in cassation is predicated on a divergence regarding the competence of the trial court in evaluating the unity of the parties, the subject matter, and the cause, as well as a perceived confusion between the subject of the case and its cause. Such contention is characterised as constituting a detriment to the binding force of res judicata associated with the contested ruling.

This objection is deemed untenable, given that it contravenes clauses 1 to 3 of Article 169 of the Civil Procedure Law. Consequently, the objection is hereby rejected.

1- In accordance with the provisions outlined in Article 6 of Cabinet Decision No. 57 of 2018, pertaining to the Implementing Regulation of Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 on the Civil Procedure Law, as amended by Cabinet Decision No. 33 of 2020, it is expressly stipulated that (A notice may be served upon an individual through any of the following methods: a- ........ b- To the person directly, regardless of their location, or at their domicile or place of residence, or through their designated agent. In the event of the individual refusing to accept the notice, such refusal is considered a valid notification to the person concerned ........).

2- It is prescribed that the term "fraud" encompasses all actions undertaken by an adversary with the explicit intent to deceive the court. This includes tactics, deception, concealment, false presentations, and the steadfast and insistent pursuit of such actions to a degree that implies their validity, with the ultimate aim of misleading the court and influencing its opinion. It is further established that the fraud forming the foundation for a petition seeking review shall originate from the respondent or their agent, exert an influence on the court's opinion, and have been deliberately concealed by the petitioner.

3- Whereas in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the basis for the objection is rooted in the alleged fraud committed by the first respondent in serving the notice at the office of the lawyer, Mr. [Name], notwithstanding that it was not their officially chosen domicile. and the buyer, [Name]. The dispute reached its resolution through the Supreme Court's decision on 9/2/2021 in Cassation No. 909 of 2020, which reversed and adjudicated the merits of Appeal No. 2426 of 2019, Sharjah Civil. The petitioners' inheritor had filed the aforementioned appeal, and the Supreme Court rejected it, affirming the annulment of the understanding agreement between the first respondent and the petitioners' inheritor dated 15/10/2008. It is crucial to highlight that the lawyer, Mr. [Name], acted as the representative of the seller, a Kuwaiti national, in the dispute until the court of the next instance issued a ruling in his favour on 10/11/2020. Subsequent to this ruling and upon the death of the seller on 13/11/2020, the lawyer's power of attorney for his deceased client lapsed. However, one of the heirs of the deceased, [Name], acting as an agent on behalf of the remaining nine living heirs with full legal capacity, appointed the lawyer [Name] as an agent to litigate on their behalf in all cases and disputes to which he is a party, in any capacity, before all courts of the United Arab Emirates of all types and degrees. This appointment, supported by a special power of attorney authenticated on 7/12/2020 by the Authentication Department of the Ministry of Justice, was executed without objection. This official document substantiates the agency of the aforementioned lawyer acting on behalf of his clients, granting him the authority to pursue their claims, provide a defence on their behalf, and undertake all necessary measures until a final ruling is issued on the merits. The evidence on record indicates that the buyer, identified as the first respondent, initiated Cassation No. 909 of 2020 against the petitioners, who are the heirs of the deceased seller. The notification to the petitioners was carried out at the address specified in the appeal statement, as evidenced by a photocopy of the uncontested civil cassation statement notification form attached to a copy of the statement. The process server attested that on 17/10/2020, he proceeded to the address indicated on the notice, i.e., [Name] Law Firm. Law Firm. Subsequent to presenting the notification to the employee, [Name], he stated that the respondent was currently abroad and insisted that any notice should be made in person only. Likewise, the appellant in the aforementioned cassation, on 4/1/2021, employed the same method. Following the process server's presentation of the notice to the legal advisor in the office of lawyer [Name], the legal advisor expressed that the notice should be served in person only. In light of these circumstances, the office of the attorney, [Name], appointed by the agent of the deceased's heirs during the cassation stage, is validly designated as the elected domicile. This election is deemed sufficient for the service of necessary documents to proceed with the case at the level of litigation to which he has been assigned, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Federal Civil Procedure Law. This assertion holds, given that the heirs duly notified their agent at their elected domicile, complying with the requirements of Article 153 of the same law, using one of the methods specified in Article 6 of Cabinet Decision No. 57 of 2018, as amended by Cabinet Decision No. 33 of 2020. Notwithstanding the office employee and legal advisor both refusing to accept the notice, despite the existence of an undisputed official document validating the lawyer's power of attorney, the notification process is deemed correct. The rejection by both the office employee and the legal advisor is construed as effective notification to the petitioners, and in light of this rejection, it is asserted that there is no basis to claim fraud on the part of the respondent that could have impacted the contested ruling. Consequently, the objection is deemed untenable and is recommended for rejection.

4- The petitioner's objection, asserting that the respondent's appeal in Cassation No. 909 of 2020 contested the authority of the trial court to assess the unity of the parties, the subject matter, and the cause, in contravention of Article 49 of the Evidence Law, and amalgamated the subject of the case and its cause with legal arguments, thereby deeming the contested ruling of 10/11/2020 in Appeal No. 2426 of 2020 to have applied the correct legal principle, is deemed unfounded. Consequently, the cassation should have been dismissed. This objection is considered untenable, as the substance of the stated approach amounts to nothing more than a challenge to the binding force of res judicata acquired by the contested ruling of 9/2/2021. Such a challenge is not a valid ground for seeking a review, particularly when it does not fall within the limited cases specified in Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of Article 169 of the Federal Civil Procedure Law. Consequently, the objection is deemed unacceptable.

The Court

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling in the petition and the remaining documents, the first respondent /[Name] previously initiated Suit No. 8413 of 2018, a Plenary Civil, against the inheritor of the petitioners and the second respondent, [Name]. The relief sought was a judgment annulling the contract dated 15/10/2018, which constituted the subject matter of the dispute, and provisionally reducing the property price by approximately 37.5%, in accordance with the final requests made. The court of first instance, on 21/11/2019, rendered a decision to annul the understanding agreement between the first respondent and the inheritor of the petitioners, dated 15/10/2008. Following an appeal in cassation by the inheritor, the court of second instance, on 7/4/2020, deemed Appeal No. 2426 of 2019 inadmissible due to a prior adjudication. Subsequently, the appellant contested this decision with Cassation No. 433 of 2020. The Federal Supreme Court, in response, reversed and remanded the case to the issuing court for reconsideration by a different panel. The court of the next instance annulled the appealed ruling, asserting that the case was inadmissible due to its previous adjudication in the two Cassations No. 255 - 277 of 2012, Civil Supreme, and Case No. 29 of 2019, Civil Plenary. Dissatisfied with this decision, the first respondent appealed with two cassations: the first under No. 844 of 2020, challenging both the petitioners' inheritor and the second respondent, and the second under No. 909 of 2020, disputing the petitioners, which is the subject of the present review. After the Federal Supreme Court deliberated on both cassations and consolidated them for connection, on 8/2/2021, it rejected Cassation No. 844 of 2020 and reversed the contested ruling concerning Cassation No. 909 of 2020. The court adjudicated the merits of Appeal No. 2426 of 2019, Sharjah Civil, by rejecting it and confirming the appealed ruling.

The ruling in question faced opposition from the heirs of the late [Name], leading them to challenge it through a petition for review. The cassation for review was duly presented to the court in a Council Chamber, which deemed it worthy of consideration in a session. The cassation was subsequently heard, as documented in the minutes of the sessions. The pronouncement of the ruling is scheduled for today's hearing.

The cassation seeking review is founded on two grounds, the first of which the appellants contest in the contested ruling. They contend that the failure to notify the petitioners as respondents, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 153, 154, and 155 of Federal Law No. 10 of 2014, and Article 8 of the same law, constitutes a breach. Additionally, they allege fraud committed by the appellant during the hearing of the contested ruling, asserting that the notification to the petitioners at the office of lawyer [Name] falsely claimed it as their elected domicile. This, according to the appellants, satisfies the requirements of the first paragraph of Article 169, forming the basis for the petition and necessitating the withdrawal and review of the contested ruling in line with their requests.

This objection lacks merits, since in accordance with the provisions outlined in Article 6 of Cabinet Decision No. 57 of 2018, pertaining to the Implementing Regulation of Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 on the Civil Procedure Law, as amended by Cabinet Decision No. 33 of 2020, it is expressly stipulated that (A notice may be served upon an individual through any of the following methods: a- ........ b- To the person directly, regardless of their location, or at their domicile or place of residence, or through their designated agent. In the event of the individual refusing to accept the notice, such refusal is considered a valid notification to the person concerned ........).

It is prescribed that the term "fraud" encompasses all actions undertaken by an adversary with the explicit intent to deceive the court. This includes tactics, deception, concealment, false presentations, and the steadfast and insistent pursuit of such actions to a degree that implies their validity, with the ultimate aim of misleading the court and influencing its opinion. It is further established that the fraud forming the foundation for a petition seeking review shall originate from the respondent or their agent, exert an influence on the court's opinion, and have been deliberately concealed by the petitioner.

Whereas in light of the aforementioned circumstances, the basis for the objection is rooted in the alleged fraud committed by the first respondent in serving the notice at the office of the lawyer, Mr. [Name], notwithstanding that it was not their officially chosen domicile. and the buyer, [Name]. The dispute reached its resolution through the Supreme Court's decision on 9/2/2021 in Cassation No. 909 of 2020, which reversed and adjudicated the merits of Appeal No. 2426 of 2019, Sharjah Civil. The petitioners' inheritor had filed the aforementioned appeal, and the Supreme Court rejected it, affirming the annulment of the understanding agreement between the first respondent and the petitioners' inheritor dated 15/10/2008. It is crucial to highlight that the lawyer, Mr. [Name], acted as the representative of the seller, a Kuwaiti national, in the dispute until the court of the next instance issued a ruling in his favour on 10/11/2020. Subsequent to this ruling and upon the death of the seller on 13/11/2020, the lawyer's power of attorney for his deceased client lapsed. However, one of the heirs of the deceased, [Name], acting as an agent on behalf of the remaining nine living heirs with full legal capacity, appointed the lawyer [Name] as an agent to litigate on their behalf in all cases and disputes to which he is a party, in any capacity, before all courts of the United Arab Emirates of all types and degrees. This appointment, supported by a special power of attorney authenticated on 7/12/2020 by the Authentication Department of the Ministry of Justice, was executed without objection. This official document substantiates the agency of the aforementioned lawyer acting on behalf of his clients, granting him the authority to pursue their claims, provide a defence on their behalf, and undertake all necessary measures until a final ruling is issued on the merits. The evidence on record indicates that the buyer, identified as the first respondent, initiated Cassation No. 909 of 2020 against the petitioners, who are the heirs of the deceased seller. The notification to the petitioners was carried out at the address specified in the appeal statement, as evidenced by a photocopy of the uncontested civil cassation statement notification form attached to a copy of the statement. The process server attested that on 17/10/2020, he proceeded to the address indicated on the notice, i.e., [Name] Law Firm. Law Firm. ‌Subsequent to presenting the notification to the employee, [Name], he stated that the respondent was currently abroad and insisted that any notice should be made in person only. Likewise, the appellant in the aforementioned cassation, on 4/1/2021, employed the same method. Following the process server's presentation of the notice to the legal advisor in the office of lawyer [Name], the legal advisor expressed that the notice should be served in person only. In light of these circumstances, the office of the attorney, [Name], appointed by the agent of the deceased's heirs during the cassation stage, is validly designated as the elected domicile. This election is deemed sufficient for the service of necessary documents to proceed with the case at the level of litigation to which he has been assigned, in accordance with the provisions of Article 56 of the Federal Civil Procedure Law. This assertion holds, given that the heirs duly notified their agent at their elected domicile, complying with the requirements of Article 153 of the same law, using one of the methods specified in Article 6 of Cabinet Decision No. 57 of 2018, as amended by Cabinet Decision No. 33 of 2020. Notwithstanding the office employee and legal advisor both refusing to accept the notice, despite the existence of an undisputed official document validating the lawyer's power of attorney, the notification process is deemed correct. The rejection by both the office employee and the legal advisor is construed as effective notification to the petitioners, and in light of this rejection, it is asserted that there is no basis to claim fraud on the part of the respondent that could have impacted the contested ruling. Consequently, the objection is deemed untenable and is recommended for rejection.

The petitioner's objection, asserting that the respondent's appeal in Cassation No. 909 of 2020 contested the authority of the trial court to assess the unity of the parties, the subject matter, and the cause, in contravention of Article 49 of the Evidence Law, and amalgamated the subject of the case and its cause with legal arguments, thereby deeming the contested ruling of 10/11/2020 in Appeal No. 2426 of 2020 to have applied the correct legal principle, is deemed unfounded. Consequently, the cassation should have been dismissed. This objection is considered untenable, as the substance of the stated approach amounts to nothing more than a challenge to the binding force of res judicata acquired by the contested ruling of 9/2/2021. Such a challenge is not a valid ground for seeking a review, particularly when it does not fall within the limited cases specified in Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of Article 169 of the Federal Civil Procedure Law. Consequently, the objection is deemed unacceptable.