Under the law then in force, an insurer's diya liability for a female victim was half that for a male

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Request No. 1 of 2013 (Civil), decision of 24 July 2013

Court
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassationمحكمة النقض - أبوظبي
Case
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Request No. 1 of 2013 (Civil), decision of 24 July 2013
Arabic citation
الطلب رقم 1 لسنة 2013 هيئة عامة مدني، جلسة 24/7/2013
Bench
General Assembly of the court General Assembly
Topics
Civil law
Laws applied
Civil Transactions Law 1985 (repealed)
The judgment
Read it on adjd.gov.ae ↗ (ADJD Court of Cassation Technical Office, 'Collection of judgments and decisions of the General Assembly over two decades since the establishment of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation' (2026), decision no. 4, pp. 22-34 (ADJD publications library, document 0901d61786449d2a))
Summary written
31 October 2026
Print

The principle

Diya (blood money) for death or bodily injury is governed by Islamic law under Article 1 of the Penal Code of 1987 and Law No. 3 of 1996, applying the Maliki school. The AED 200,000 figure in Law No. 17 of 1991 (as amended in 2003) only converts the full diya into money and does not make men and women equal: a woman's diya is half a man's. Separate diyas or fixed fractions are due for each lost bodily function; unspecified injuries attract a judicially assessed amount (حكومة عدل); compensation may not be added for harm already covered by diya.

The case and the decision

A father sued a motor insurer in the Al Ain civil court on behalf of his three-year-old daughter, who had been run down by an insured car in September 2011 and left with severe head and lung injuries, a fractured femur, hemiplegia, loss of bladder control and impaired speech. The driver had been convicted of causing injury by negligence. The courts below awarded full diyas equal to those of a man (AED 200,000 each for loss of bladder control and for the hemiplegia) plus AED 240,000 in compensation for the remaining injuries, and rejected the insurer's argument that the mother shared fault. On the insurer's appeal in cassation (No. 429 of 2012, civil), the question of a woman's diya was referred to the General Assembly because of conflicting decisions.

The General Assembly held that, under Article 1 of the Penal Code (Federal Law No. 3 of 1987), offences of hudud, qisas and diya are governed by Islamic law, and Law No. 3 of 1996 on the jurisdiction of Sharia courts confirms this; Articles 1 and 2 of the Civil Transactions Law direct the judge to Islamic law, preferring the Maliki and Hanbali schools, where no text applies. Law No. 17 of 1991, as amended by Law No. 9 of 2003, setting the diya for a person killed by mistake at AED 200,000, merely converts the full diya into currency and does not equalise men and women. A woman's diya is half that of a man. Applying Maliki authorities, each lost function carries its own diya or fixed fraction, and compensation cannot be combined with diya for the same harm. The General Assembly confirmed the principle in criminal appeal 81 of 2013, upheld the finding that the driver's fault absorbed any fault of the mother, partly quashed the judgment and recalculated the award at AED 416,334.

Why it matters

The decision is of historical interest for the law on bodily-injury awards, which matter to motor and liability insurers and employers. It records the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation's position in 2013 under the Penal Code of 1987 and the diya legislation then in force, which have since been replaced or amended.

Laws applied

Article 1 of Federal Law No. 3 of 1987 (former Penal Code)
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Crimes and Penalties Law (Penal Code).
Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Federal Law No. 3 of 1996 on the jurisdiction of Sharia courts over certain offences
Article 1 of Federal Law No. 17 of 1991, as amended by Federal Law No. 9 of 2003 (amount of diya)
Articles 1 and 2 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 (Civil Transactions Law) — text of articles 1, 2
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Transactions Law 2025.

In the court’s words

“بإقرار المبدأ الصادر في الطعن رقم 81 لسنة 2013 جزائي الصادر بتاريخ 26/3/2013 عن الدائرة الجزائية الأولى بمحكمة النقض المتضمن أن دية المرأة على النصف من دية الرجل”

Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.

Related judgments

A debtor who claims insolvency must prove it; the court must rule on the claim as framed and as characterised on cassation

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Civil 62/2015 · 21 October 2015

Insolvency (الإعسار) exists where a debtor's debts equal or exceed his assets; once established, the court may place him under interdiction under Articles 401 and 402 of …

An assignment of a debt cannot be enforced against the debtor who did not consent to it

Abu Dhabi Cassation — General Assembly 1/2018 · 6 February 2018

The bar on cassation appeals against appellate rulings 'in execution procedures' (Article 173(3) of the former Civil Procedure Law) covers only rulings on the measures th…

A purchase order is a binding contract once essential terms are agreed, and its storage-charge clause is enforceable

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Commercial 1268/2021 · 6 January 2022

A contract is formed when an offer is matched by acceptance, expressed in words, writing, conduct or any behaviour that leaves no doubt of consent (Articles 125, 129 to 1…

A subcontractor has no contractual claim against the project owner, even if the owner paid some of its invoices

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Commercial 1380/2021 · 10 February 2022

The main construction contract creates no rights for a subcontractor against the employer. Following the employer's instructions does not make the subcontractor a party t…

When a land sale is void, the buyer recovers the price and unjust-enrichment compensation even if he shared the fault

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Civil 40/2022 · 12 April 2022

Unjust enrichment is an independent source of obligation (Articles 318 and 324 of the Civil Transactions Law): a person enriched at another's expense without lawful cause…

A co-owner leaving joint ownership of indivisible property: valuation, offer to co-owners, then sale of the whole by auction

Abu Dhabi Cassation — General Assembly 2/2023 · 25 October 2023

Where jointly owned real property cannot be divided in kind without serious loss, a co-owner who wants to exit may ask for sale of his share or of the whole property. In …

Source. Summary written by Polaris from the judgment published by the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on adjd.gov.ae (ADJD Court of Cassation Technical Office, 'Collection of judgments and decisions of the General Assembly over two decades since the establishment of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation' (2026), decision no. 4, pp. 22-34 (ADJD publications library, document 0901d61786449d2a)), read on 31 October 2026. Party names are anonymised in the court’s publication.
Published for general information by Polaris Corporate Services FZ-LLC. It is not legal advice. This page is a summary written by Polaris; it is not the judgment and is not an official translation. Read the judgment on the court’s official service before relying on it. A judgment decides the dispute before the court; its weight in a later case depends on the court, the facts and any later change in the law or in the court’s own case law.

Begin a Conversation

Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.

Arrange a Consultation →