A co-owner may force a sale of the whole property only if co-owners living there are not harmed

Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Resolution No. 1 of 2025, 11 February 2025

Court
Dubai Court of Cassationمحكمة التمييز - دبي
Case
Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Resolution No. 1 of 2025, 11 February 2025
Arabic citation
قرار الهيئة العامة لمحكمة التمييز رقم 1 لسنة 2025، جلسة 11/2/2025
Bench
General Assembly of the court General Assembly
Topics
Real estate · 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Civil Transactions Law 1985 (repealed)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, General Assembly Resolution No. 1 of 2025)
Summary written
1 November 2026
Print

The principle

Under Article 1166 of the Civil Transactions Law (as replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2020), where co-owned real property cannot be divided in kind, or division would cause harm or a serious loss of value, any co-owner may sell his share to another co-owner or ask the court to sell it by auction, and if the share cannot be sold he may ask for the whole property to be sold. The General Assembly added a condition: the sale of the whole must not harm co-owners who occupy the property, particularly the elderly, minors, unmarried, divorced or widowed women and persons with disabilities, especially where they have no other suitable home. The trial judge weighs this and must give objective, logical reasons.

The case and the decision

At the request of the President of the Court of Cassation, the General Assembly was asked to lay down rules for ending co-ownership (فض الشيوع) of real property.

The Assembly started from Article 1166 of the Civil Transactions Law as replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2020. Where division in kind is impossible, or would cause harm or a large reduction in value, any co-owner may sell his share to another co-owner or ask the judge to sell it by the method the law prescribes; if the share cannot be sold, he may ask for the whole property to be sold and the price divided according to the shares. The judge may, at a co-owner's request, first restrict the auction to the co-owners. A sale request is not accepted if it causes greater harm to the other co-owners, and the same person may not make a new request within one year of the earlier refusal or until the harm ends, whichever is sooner.

Applying that text, the Assembly resolved, by the majority required under Article 20(b) of Dubai Law No. 13 of 2016 on the Judicial Authority, that a co-owner may seek the sale of his share and, failing that, of the whole property, provided that the sale does not harm any co-owner who occupies it. It singled out the elderly, minors, unmarried, divorced and widowed women and persons with disabilities, especially where the harm comes from having no other home or being unable to obtain a suitable alternative. All of this is left to the discretion of the trial judge, in line with the law and the requirements of justice and the circumstances of the occupant, but the judge's decision or judgment must rest on objective and logical reasons that justify the result.

Why it matters

Co-owned homes are common in Dubai, particularly after inheritance or joint family purchases. A co-owner who wants to exit cannot assume that a forced sale of the whole will follow automatically when division is impossible; the position of co-owners who live in the property, and the availability of alternative housing for them, can defeat or delay the sale. The resolution was decided under the 1985 Civil Transactions Law as amended in 2020.

Laws applied

Article 1166 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 (Civil Transactions Law), as replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2020 — text of article 1166
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Transactions Law 2025.
Article 20 of Dubai Law No. 13 of 2016 on the Judicial Authority in the Emirate of Dubai (powers and majority of the General Assembly)

In the court’s words

“بِشَرط أَلَّا يُلحقَ أَيٌّ مِن الشركاء شَاغلي العقار ضررًا بسبب بيعه”

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

Related judgments

Unregistered sales of land granted to UAE nationals in Dubai give the buyer no title and no limitation defence

Dubai Cassation — General Assembly 1/2021 · 27 January 2021

Under the Ruler of Dubai's instructions of 2 September 1994 (published on 18 November 1994), dispositions of land granted by the government to UAE nationals without the R…

A request to sell the whole co-owned property must be made in the claim, not to the enforcement judge

Dubai Cassation — General Assembly 2/2022 · 31 October 2022

Article 1166(2) of the Civil Transactions Law, as amended, allows a co-owner who cannot sell his share to ask for the whole property to be sold. Such requests must be mad…

A creditor can set aside an insolvent debtor's transfers within three years of learning why they harm it

Dubai Cassation — Commercial 337/2025 · 15 May 2025

All of a debtor's assets secure his debts. A creditor may have a debtor's disposal declared ineffective against it (Articles 391, 396 and 397 of the Civil Transactions La…

A sale of RAK property to a buyer not entitled to own it there is void and only the price is returned

RAK Cassation — Civil 39/11 JY · 31 July 2016

A contract is void if the law prohibits dealing in its subject matter (Article 201 of the Civil Transactions Law). In Ras Al Khaimah, freehold ownership by others than UA…

A seller of registered land who never transferred title at the Land Department can be made to refund and compensate

RAK Cassation — Civil 4/13 JY · 26 February 2018

Delivery of a sold property may be actual or constructive, for example where the seller keeps it at the buyer's request, but ownership of registered land passes only by r…

Under apparent agency a land sale binds the owner, and only the owner can claim under it

RAK Cassation — Civil 14/13 JY · 9 April 2018

A contract may be made through an agent, whose authority under the agency agreement governs his relationship with the principal; a third party must normally check the age…

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, General Assembly Resolution No. 1 of 2025), 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 →