Introduction 

On 14 January 2026, the General Assembly of the Dubai Court of Cassation issued its Decision No. (1) of 2026, it resolves a significant procedural question arising from recent amendments to the UAE Civil Procedures Law. Specifically, the decision clarifies the proper interpretation of Article 164, as amended by Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2025. It also sets binding principles governing the formal validity of appeals. Overall, this decision represents a decisive shift toward procedural strictness. It reinforces the importance of discipline, clarity, and efficiency in appellate litigation. 

Legislative Background and the Source of Ambiguity 

Prior to the amendment, Article 164 of the Civil Procedures Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022) had a key features. it expressly let appellants to submit the grounds of appeal up to the date of the first hearing. This flexibility was clear in paragraph (3) of the former text, which treated the submission of grounds as a procedural step that could be deferred without invalidating the appeal. 

However, Federal Decree-Law No. (22) of 2025 repealed this paragraph entirely and replaced Article 164 with a new formulation. The amended provision now states unequivocally that an appeal must be filed by a statement of appeal that includes, at the time of filing, (i) the appealed judgment, (ii) its date, (iii) the grounds of appeal, and (iv) the relief sought, failing which the appeal shall be declared inadmissible. 

This legislative change raised a critical interpretive question: Is the inclusion of grounds of appeal now a substantive condition for admissibility, or does the former procedural flexibility still survive implicitly? 

The Question Referred to the General Assembly 

Recognizing the systemic importance of this issue and the potential for inconsistent judicial application, the President of the Dubai Court of Cassation formally referred the matter to the General Assembly of the Court for authoritative interpretation. The question focused on the legal effect of deleting the former grace period and whether courts may still accept grounds of appeal submitted by way of a subsequent memorandum. 

The Court’s Interpretation and Legal Reasoning 

The General Assembly adopted a clear, literal, and purposive interpretation of the amended Article 164. The Court held that by deliberately deleting paragraph (3), the legislator intended to abolish the previously granted grace period entirely. The inclusion of the grounds of appeal is no longer a mere organizational requirement; it has become a substantive and essential condition for the admissibility of the appeal. 

The Court emphasized that the grounds must be set out clearly, specifically, and in detail within the statement of appeal itself. Generic or formulaic expressions—such as alleging “error in the application of the law” or “deficiency in reasoning” without identifying the precise defect—do not satisfy this requirement. An appeal lacking articulated grounds is deemed legally void of reasons, and the sanction is straightforward automatic inadmissibility. 

No Cure by Subsequent Memorandum 

One of the most consequential aspects of the decision is the Court’s express rejection of any attempt to cure the defect by filing a later memorandum, even if the statutory time limit for appeal has not yet expired. The Court held that submitting grounds at a later stage does not remedy the initial invalidity of the appeal. The defect arises at the moment of filing, and once established, it cannot be rectified retroactively. 

Furthermore, the Court confirmed that the appellate court must rule on inadmissibility ex officio, without the need for a plea by the opposing party. This underscores the jurisdictional nature of the requirement. 

Scope of Application: Broad and Comprehensive 

The General Assembly made it clear that this principle applies to all forms of appeal, regardless of their procedural nature. This includes: 

• Ordinary appeals 

• Incidental appeals 

• Cross-appeals 

• Appeals filed by memorandum rather than by formal statement 

• Appeals against payment orders, due to the unity of procedural principles 

Where an appeal is initiated by memorandum, that memorandum itself must contain both the grounds and the relief sought at the time of filing. Any deviation exposes the appeal to dismissal for inadmissibility. 

Preservation of Certain Procedural Rights 

Importantly, the Court drew a careful distinction between grounds of appeal and subsequent procedural rights. While the initial grounds must be included in the statement of appeal, parties retain the right—under the general procedural rules—to amend or supplement the grounds, provided the original claims remain unchanged. Likewise, parties may still submit substantive defences and evidentiary requests in accordance with the law. 

Thus, the decision does not eliminate procedural flexibility altogether; rather, it reorders it, making the statement of appeal the indispensable foundation upon which later procedural steps may build. 

Practical and Strategic Implications 

This decision has profound implications for appellate practice in the UAE. Lawyers and litigants must now approach the filing of appeals with heightened diligence. Appeals can no longer be filed as “protective” or placeholder submissions. The statement of appeal must be fully reasoned, legally structured, and factually precise from the outset. 

Failure to comply exposes the appeal to immediate dismissal, regardless of its substantive merit. As such, the decision elevates the standard of appellate advocacy and aligns procedural practice with the objectives of judicial efficiency and certainty. 

Conclusion 

Decision No. (1) of 2026 marks a decisive turning point in UAE appellate procedure. By affirming that the grounds of appeal are a mandatory, substantive requirement to be included at the time of filing, the Dubai Court of Cassation has closed the door on procedural laxity and reinforced the principle that access to appellate review is conditioned upon strict compliance with statutory form. 

This ruling not only clarifies the amended Article 164 but also sets a binding procedural standard that will govern appellate litigation going forward, ensuring greater discipline, clarity, and efficiency within the UAE judicial system.

Authors: