Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Resolution No. 10 of 2025, 5 November 2025
Under Articles 255, 256 and 259 of the Civil Procedure Code, a garnishee that neither deposits what it holds nor declares, within seven days of service of the attachment, what it owes the debtor, or that declares insufficiently or untruthfully or hides documents, may be ordered to pay the creditor holding an executory instrument the amount for which the attachment was made, in an action by the ordinary procedure brought within three years. The General Assembly held that this action is a substantive civil claim against the garnishee personally, based on its procedural fault and unconnected with the course of enforcement against the debtor. It belongs to the merits courts under their ordinary jurisdiction, not to the execution judge.
Judgments of the Court of Cassation conflicted on which court hears the action brought by an attaching creditor against a garnishee who fails to make the declaration of what it holds required by Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Code (Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022). Some (Appeals Nos. 1138 of 2024 and 265 of 2009, commercial) treated it as a substantive enforcement dispute for the execution judge; others (Appeals Nos. 1475 of 2024, commercial, and 250 of 2024, real estate) gave it to the merits judge. The President of the Court referred the conflict to the General Assembly under Article 20 of Dubai Law No. 13 of 2016, where it was registered as No. 10 of 2025 and heard on 20 October 2025.
The Assembly held that under Article 207 the execution judge's exclusive jurisdiction over enforcement disputes requires compulsory enforcement and a dispute about the course and steps of enforcement; a dispute that touches neither is not an enforcement dispute and belongs to the ordinary courts. Under Articles 255, 256 and 259, a garnishee that does not deposit what it owes or hand it to a custodian must declare it to the authority that ordered the attachment within seven days of service, stating the amount, its cause and any grounds of extinction, even if it owes nothing. If it does not declare properly, declares insufficiently or falsely, or hides supporting documents, judgment may be given against it, in favour of a creditor holding an executory instrument, for the amount of the attachment, in an action by the ordinary procedure, which is barred three years after the decision to declare; no judgment is given if the garnishee cures the default before pleadings close, even on appeal.
The cause of that action is the garnishee's breach of its legal duty, a procedural fault engaging its liability. The claim against the original debtor thus becomes a personal, substantive claim by the creditor against the garnishee, unrelated to the enforcement of the instrument against the debtor. By the majority under Article 20(b), the Assembly held that the action is a substantive civil claim for the merits courts, according to their administrative and value jurisdiction, and departed from the contrary judgments.
Banks and other third parties holding a debtor's money can become personally liable for the attached sum if they fail to declare properly or in time. The resolution places such claims before the ordinary courts, with full proceedings and appeals, rather than in summary enforcement, and confirms the three-year limit and the possibility of curing the default during the case.
| Articles 207, 255, 256 and 259 of Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (Civil Procedure Code) — text of articles 207, 255, 256, 259 |
| 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) |
“هي دعوى مدنية موضوعية ليست من ضمن اختصاصات قاضي التنفيذ، وإنما يختص بنظرها القاضي الموضوعي بحسب الاختصاص الإداري والقيمي للمحاكم”Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.
A debtor's only home cannot be sold in execution on the ground that it exceeds his housing needs
Under Article 106(2) of the Civil Procedure Regulation (Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018), the house used as a residence by the debtor and the dependants living with him…
Challenges to insurance-committee decisions issued before 1 December 2023 go to first instance, later ones to appeal
Federal Decree-Law No. 48 of 2023 on Regulating Insurance Activities, in force from 1 December 2023, sends challenges against decisions of the insurance dispute settlemen…
Appeal judgments in substantive enforcement disputes, unlike those on pure enforcement steps, can be challenged in cassation
The Civil Procedure Code distinguishes temporary enforcement disputes, which seek only a stay or continuation of enforcement without touching the right and are decided by…
A mortgaged property's auction award can be appealed only for defects in the bidding, its form or a missed stay
Under Article 300(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, a judgment awarding a property at auction may be appealed only for a defect in the bidding procedure or in the form of t…
A respondent's counter-appeal must be filed by the first case-management hearing, even within thirty days
Under Article 164 of the former Civil Procedure Law (as amended in 2018), a respondent to an appeal may lodge its own appeal, by ordinary procedure or by a memorandum wit…
A cheque bearing the executory formula can still be contested as a security cheque in a substantive execution dispute
A cheque is a means of payment that carries in itself the presumption of the cause for which it was handed to the payee, but the drawer may rebut that presumption, disput…
Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.
Arrange a Consultation →