A debtor's only home cannot be sold in execution on the ground that it exceeds his housing needs

Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), No. 3 of 2022 (opinion requested by the Judicial Council), 28 April 2022

Court
Dubai Court of Cassationمحكمة التمييز - دبي
Case
Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), No. 3 of 2022 (opinion requested by the Judicial Council), 28 April 2022
Arabic citation
الهيئة العامة لمحكمة التمييز رقم 3 لسنة 2022، جلسة 28/4/2022
Bench
General Assembly of the court General Assembly
Topics
Courts & arbitration · Real estate · Banking & finance
Laws applied
Civil Procedure Code
Civil Transactions Law 1985 (repealed)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 docket No. 3 of 2022)
Summary written
1 November 2026
Print

The principle

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 may not be attached, unless it is mortgaged and the debt arises from its price. The exemption does not require the house to be necessary or modest: if the debtor actually lived in it before enforcement and did not move there to shield it, it cannot be attached and sold on the argument that a cheaper home would do. The exemption covers one home only; if the debtor has several, creditors may enforce against all but one. Article 242(2) of the current Civil Procedure Code (Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022) contains the same exemption in materially the same terms.

The case and the decision

The General Secretariat of the Judicial Council asked the General Assembly whether execution by sale may be levied on the house prepared for the debtor's residence where it exceeds his needs, in the light of Article 106(2) of the Civil Procedure Regulation.

Article 106 of the Regulation, issued by Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018, provides that, without prejudice to any other legislation, the house serving as a residence for the debtor or judgment debtor, and for relatives living with him whom he must support, may not be attached, unless the house or a share in it is mortgaged and the debt arises from its price, in which case it may be attached to pay that debt.

The Assembly held that the legislature thereby preferred the debtor's right to remain in his home to the creditor's right to be paid from any surplus value. The text does not require the house to be necessary for the debtor's housing or not to exceed his needs, as long as he actually lived in it before enforcement and did not take it as a residence in order to remove it from the assets available to creditors. It must, however, be the debtor's only home: where he has several, the creditor may enforce against all but one, reserved for the debtor and his family, because the others exceed his needs. It is therefore not permissible to attach a debtor's only family home, occupied before enforcement and without any device, on the argument that it could be sold and a cheaper home bought, because that contradicts the express wording of Article 106(2). Where a text is clear there is no room for interpretation (Article 1 of the Civil Transactions Law); had the legislature wanted to limit the exemption to a necessary home, it would have said so.

The Assembly concluded that execution by sale on the house prepared for the debtor's residence is not permitted on the ground that it exceeds his housing needs.

Why it matters

Individual debtors in the UAE, including business owners who have given personal guarantees for company debts, keep their family home out of creditors' reach unless it is mortgaged for its own price, and creditors cannot force a sale to make the debtor move somewhere cheaper. Second homes and investment properties remain exposed.

Laws applied

Article 106(2) of Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018 on the Regulation of the Civil Procedure Law
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Procedure Code.
Article 242(2) of Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (Civil Procedure Code), the current equivalent provision — text of article 242
Article 1 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 (Civil Transactions Law) — text of article 1
Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Transactions Law 2025.

In the court’s words

“عدم جواز التنفيذ بالبيع على الدار المعدة لسكنى المدين”

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

Related judgments

A claim fee paid late but before the first hearing makes the claim effective from the date of payment

Dubai Cassation — General Assembly 1/2023 · 13 June 2023

Under Articles 44, 45 and 47 of the Civil Procedure Code a claim is registered and effective from the filing of the statement of claim only if the fee is paid within thre…

A registered mortgage is enforceable for the unpaid balance; part payment and interest disputes do not stop the sale

Abu Dhabi Cassation — Commercial 377/2023 · 18 May 2023

A notarised instrument, including a duly registered mortgage securing a certain, liquidated and due debt, is an execution title under Article 212 of the Civil Procedure L…

A debtor company's trade licences and other intangible business assets can be attached by its creditors

Dubai Cassation — General Assembly 1/2024 · 31 January 2024

All of a debtor's assets secure its debts (Article 391 of the Civil Transactions Law), and a creditor may attach the debtor's movable and immovable property except what t…

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…

A claim that an Emirati partner's 51 per cent holding was nominal cannot be sent to arbitration

Dubai Cassation — Commercial 342/2024 · 30 September 2024

Arbitration may not be agreed on matters that cannot be the subject of compromise (Article 4(2) of the Federal Arbitration Law). A claim that a UAE national's 51 per cent…

A developer that sues instead of terminating lets the off-plan buyer avoid termination by paying before final judgment

Dubai Cassation — Real Estate 49/2025 · 29 April 2025

Once the Land Department has issued its document confirming the procedure under Article 11 of Dubai Law No. 13 of 2008 (as amended by Law No. 19 of 2020), a developer may…

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 docket No. 3 of 2022), 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 →