Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Appeal No. 1 of 2021, judgment of 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 Ruler's permission are void as a matter of public order. Earlier sales are not void, as laws are not retroactive (Article 112 of the Constitution), but cannot be registered after 18 November 1994 without special permission. Since ownership passes only on registration (Articles 1275 and 1277 of the Civil Transactions Law), an unregistered sale overtaken by the instructions becomes impossible to perform (if earlier) or is void (if later), and in either case is no title. The occupier therefore cannot rely on the passage of time (Article 1321) against the grantee or his heirs.
The heirs of a man who had received a plot of land in Nad Al Hamar as a grant from the Ruler of Dubai in 1993 sued the occupier of the land in 2019, after he claimed to have bought it from their father on 2 August 1994. They sought a declaration that the sale was void, return of the land and AED 4.4 million for the benefit he had derived from it. The court of first instance ordered the land returned; the Court of Appeal set that judgment aside and held the claim barred by the passage of time. The heirs appealed in cassation.
The chamber referred the appeal to the General Assembly to reconsider the principle that such a claim is in substance one for annulment of the occupier's title, barred under Article 210 of the Civil Transactions Law fifteen years after the contract.
The Assembly held that, under Article 112 of the Constitution, laws apply only from their entry into force. The Ruler's instructions of 2 September 1994 on land granted to citizens make dispositions without the Ruler's permission void as a matter of public order. Dispositions made before the instructions are not void, but because the instructions are of public order they apply immediately to the effects of those dispositions, so they cannot be registered from 18 November 1994 unless a special permission is proved. Ownership of real property passes only on registration (Articles 1275 and 1277), an unregistered sale does not transfer it, and a contract that becomes impossible to perform is dissolved. Under Article 1321 a person holding property under a document other than a title cannot rely on the passage of time against a claim of ownership. Hence sales of granted land overtaken by the instructions before registration are either impossible to perform or void and lose their character as title, and the occupier cannot raise the passage of time against the grantee or his heirs. The Assembly adopted that principle by the required majority.
The Court of Appeal had accepted the time-bar plea, which kept it from deciding the merits. The Assembly quashed its judgment and remitted the case to the Court of Appeal, to be heard by a different panel.
Government land grants to Emirati citizens are common in Dubai's older districts, and informal sales of such land were made over the years. Buyers or occupiers under unregistered sales overtaken by the 1994 instructions cannot defeat the grantee's heirs by pleading the passage of time, which matters for the due diligence of anyone acquiring or developing such land.
| Article 112 of the Constitution of the United Arab Emirates |
| Instructions of the Ruler of Dubai of 2 September 1994 on land granted to citizens in the Emirate of Dubai (Official Gazette, 18 November 1994) |
| Articles 210, 1275, 1277 and 1321 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 (Civil Transactions Law) — text of articles 210, 1275, 1277, 1321 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 (referral to and majority of the General Assembly) |
“لا يجوز له التمسك بمرور الزمان المانع من سماع الدعوى المقامة ممن منحت له الأرض أو خلفه العام”Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.
A request to sell the whole co-owned property must be made in the claim, not to the enforcement judge
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 co-owner may force a sale of the whole property only if co-owners living there are not harmed
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 w…
A creditor can set aside an insolvent debtor's transfers within three years of learning why they harm it
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
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
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
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…
Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.
Arrange a Consultation →