As a very old phenomenon of legal jurisprudence, ‘res judicata’ fundamentally means a restriction to re-file the same matter again before the court. It is intended to guarantee the conclusion of decisions and to protect the rights of litigants from multiple cases on the same issues. One may need a lawyer if they have been charged against the same offence twice. Consequently, the Legal Consultants of Dubai have briefly outlined UAE Court’s behaviour towards res judicata or re-litigation.

Res Judicata under UAE Law

The Courts and the Law of UAE are on a similar note with regards to res judicata as highlighted under Article 92 of Federal Law Number 11 of 1992 on Civil Procedure Code reads as below:

“Any defence during the court hearing for disregarding the case due to already being adjudicated upon will be accepted by the court, and the court shall decide on the matter on their motion.”

Additionally, Article 49 of the Federal Law Number 10 of 1992 on Evidence Law also recognize this principle and restrict certain matters that have already been determined by the competent court. Res judicata is viewed in UAE law as a standard of a public request under which one party is allowed to submit a request for res judicata at any time amid the proceedings or at the time of first and second appeal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this does not mean that the doctrine would be widely applicable as there are few restrictions to its application under UAE Law.

Basically, res judicata is applicable to cases which have already been reviewed an adjudicated upon by the judge of a competent court. The scope of re-litigation in UAE is narrowed as evident from Article 49 of the Evidence law which stresses upon the finality of a judgment rather than avoiding multiple suits.

Pre-requisites of Res-Judicata Application

Some generic conditions which were laid down in numerous precedents and were widely accepted by UAE courts are as follows:

• The case so filed is identical to a matter which is already decided upon by the competent court between same parties;
• The matter in the concerned case is already adjudicated upon on the basis of merit;
• A final judgment has been issued.

The first conditions are based upon the subject matter parity highlighting the right of submitting a new case where the subject matter is similar, and a judgment to that effect has already been issued. Secondly, if the new case so filed has a new cause of action yet have a direct nexus as that of the old case.

Pertinently, the parties in the dispute should be the same, and they must be in the same capacity in the old and new case. The application for res judicata will only be applicable to parties who were previously involved in a dispute.

Court’s Opinion

A claimant filed a case against an individual (who signed the SPA on behalf of claimant) and a property developer for termination of a sale and purchase agreement and seeking compensation for the loss incurred. The claimant contended that developer illegally increased the price of the property and sought signature through the first defendant.

The First Defendant argued his capacity to be a party to the suit since he acted on behalf of the claimant as an agent. The second Defendant challenged the jurisdiction of Dubai courts since the property was located in Abu Dhabi. Consequently, the Court rejected the claimant’s claim. On the contrary, the appeal court overturned the decision of Court of First Instance and ordered the developer for the performance of the contract disregarding the new price.

The Court of Cassation disregarded Court of Appeal’s decisions and returned the matter again to the Court of Appeal for a final decision. The Court of Appeal necessitated the termination of the SPA even when there was no breach of the contract on which the first defendant signed by virtue of a power of attorney authorized by the Claimant.

Court affirmed that if an agent signs an agreement on behalf of a principal under a POA the provisions of such contract forms rights and obligations of the principal and is binding upon him which is evident from Article 153 of the Civil Code. The court further held that any decision passed on by a criminal court on the same issue would be binding on the civil court where the subject matter is common to both the cases. As a result, the civil court will not again pass a contradictory verdict which is already delivered by the criminal court. The judgment passed by criminal court acquitting the first defendant under the charges of forging documents was final and binding on the civil court, accordingly, the civil court rejected the similar action brought against the defendants on the basis of res judicata.