Guarantors are released if the creditor does not claim within six months of maturity, unless they clearly agreed otherwise

Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 112 of 2024 (joined with Appeal No. 187 of 2024), judgment of 24 June 2024

Court
Dubai Court of Cassationمحكمة التمييز - دبي
Case
Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 112 of 2024 (joined with Appeal No. 187 of 2024), judgment of 24 June 2024
Arabic citation
الطعن رقم 112 لسنة 2024 طعن تجاري، جلسة 24/6/2024
Topics
Banking & finance · Commercial law · Civil law
Laws applied
Civil Transactions Law 1985 (repealed)
The judgment
Read it on dc.gov.ae ↗ (Dubai Courts, judgment publication service (نشر الأحكام), Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 112 of 2024)
Summary written
1 November 2026
Print

The principle

Under Article 1092 of the Civil Transactions Law, once a guaranteed debt falls due the creditor must claim it within six months, failing which the guarantor is released; this applies to commercial guarantees. The rule is not of public policy, so a guarantor may agree to remain bound for longer, but only by clear and unequivocal consent. Late-payment interest compensates the presumed harm of a solvent debtor's delay and excludes a separate claim for damages for the same delay. Where the sum claimed is known at the time of the claim, delay interest runs from the judicial claim, not from the date the judgment becomes final.

The case and the decision

Under a 2010 addendum to a construction contract, a project owner agreed to pay subcontractors on behalf of the contractor, an LLC, and two of its partners signed the addendum as its guarantors. The subcontractors later obtained a judgment against the owner and the contractor jointly, which became final on 6 June 2022, and the owner paid AED 1,983,985 through enforcement between January 2022 and March 2023. On 31 March 2023 he sued the contractor and the two guarantors for that amount, AED 1 million in damages and interest. The courts below ordered the contractor alone to pay AED 2,120,145 with interest from the date the judgment became final, and held that the guarantors had been released.

The owner's appeal (No. 112 of 2024) was dismissed on the guarantee point. Under Article 1092 the creditor must claim within six months of maturity, and the rule applies to commercial guarantees. The appeal court had found that the debt fell due when the subcontractors' judgment became final on 6 June 2022 and that the claim was filed more than six months later; nothing showed that the guarantors had agreed to a longer period. The damages claim also failed: interest for delay is itself the compensation for the harm caused by the debtor's delay, a harm presumed by law.

The owner succeeded on the start date of interest. A sum known at the time of the claim attracts delay interest from the judicial claim unless an agreement or custom sets another date. Here the amount was fixed by the earlier final judgment and was not a matter for the court's discretion, so interest ran from 31 March 2023. The Court partly quashed the judgment and amended it accordingly. The contractor's appeal (No. 187 of 2024), which argued that the owner could recover only half or only excess payments, was dismissed as a challenge to the expert findings.

Why it matters

Creditors relying on personal guarantees, including those given by partners or managers, must act within six months of the debt falling due unless the guarantee contains clear wording extending it. The judgment also limits claimants to delay interest for late payment and confirms that interest on a liquidated sum runs from the date the claim is filed.

Laws applied

Article 1092 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 (Civil Transactions Law) on the creditor's six-month period to claim against a guarantor — text of article 1092
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Transactions Law 2025.

In the court’s words

“إذا اُستحق الدين فعلى الدائن المطالبة به خلال ستة أشهر من تاريخ الاستحقاق وإلا اعتبر الكفيل خارجا من الكفالة”

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

Related judgments

A bank that let unauthorised partners move a company's money is liable in contract alongside the wrongdoers

Federal Supreme Court — Commercial 941/2019 · 24 March 2020

Where the injured party and the person responsible are bound by a contract, the court may not apply the rules of tort liability unless the harm amounts to a crime, fraud …

Joining the driver and vehicle owner does not oust the insurance committee's jurisdiction over the claim against the insurer

Dubai Cassation — General Assembly 5/2022 · 21 December 2022

Under Article 4 of Insurance Authority Board Chairman's Decision No. 33 of 2019, insurance dispute committees hear complaints by insured persons, beneficiaries or injured…

An insurance policy condition that defeats cover is void unless printed conspicuously, and courts must rule on that objection

Federal Supreme Court — Commercial 1444/2022 · 25 April 2023

Under Article 1028(1)(c) of the Civil Transactions Law, a printed condition in an insurance policy relating to a circumstance that leads to the avoidance of the contract …

Personal accident cover for a vehicle's driver is capped at the endorsement sum, with blood money counted within it

Dubai Cassation — General Assembly 1/2024 · 13 March 2024

Under the unified motor insurance policy (Insurance Authority Board Decision No. 25 of 2016), compulsory cover obliges the insurer to pay injured third parties whatever t…

Courts must examine evidence that an LLC manager acted fraudulently and that two companies operated as one

Dubai Cassation — Commercial 89/2024 · 29 May 2024

A managing partner of a limited liability company is not liable in his own assets for the company's debts unless he commits a fault. If he breaches a management duty, the…

A properly filed and served claim interrupts limitation even if it is later dismissed or declared inadmissible

Dubai Cassation — General Assembly 2/2024 · 24 July 2024

Under Article 484 of the Civil Transactions Law the limitation period is interrupted by a judicial claim, or any judicial step by which the creditor asserts its right aga…

Source. Summary written by Polaris from the judgment published by the Dubai Court of Cassation on dc.gov.ae (Dubai Courts, judgment publication service (نشر الأحكام), Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 112 of 2024), read on 1 November 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 →