Dubai court clears man accused of unlawful entry into rented villa

Dubai: A Dubai misdemeanour court has acquitted a 49-year-old Gulf national accused of unlawfully entering a private villa in Arabian Ranches, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The verdict was delivered by the Dubai Court of First Instance – Eighth Misdemeanour Circuit during a session held on Tuesday, 16 December 2025.

The public prosecution charged the defendant with violating the sanctity of private property by unlawfully entering a residence of woman without her consent and against her will, in circumstances not permitted by law. The incident allegedly occurred on 19 May 2025, within the jurisdiction of Al Barsha Police Station.

The Public Prosecution requested punishment under Article 474(1) of Federal Decree-Law No. 31 of 2021 concerning Crimes and Penalties, based on the testimony of the plaintiff  (tenant)during the investigation.

Prosecution evidence and witness statements:
The plaintiff stated that she was a tenant of a villa in Arabian Ranches owned by a woman, and that disputes later arose between her and the accused over rental payments. As a result of these disputes, the accused obtained a court eviction order. She testified that on 19 May 2025, the accused entered the property without her permission and without being accompanied by court enforcement officers. The plaintiff further confirmed that lawful eviction procedures require execution through court-appointed enforcement officers, which did not take place at the time of the entry.

Meanwhile ,witnesses, including a mediator and a security guard, testified that entry on the disputed date was permitted and not forced.

The defendant was represented by Al Awami Al Mansoori Law Firm and Legal Consultancy, whose legal team played a key role in securing the acquittal. The defence argued that the defendant had acted on behalf of the property owner under a valid court-issued eviction order, and that the visit to the villa was carried out in the presence of a court-appointed enforcement officer, a mediator and security personnel, ensuring full compliance with legal procedures. In its defence memorandum, the lawyer maintained that the defendant’s actions formed part of a lawful judicial process and did not amount to criminal trespass, stressing that there was no forced or illegal entry.

The defence outlined four main pillars to its case, noting that the eviction order had been issued by the Rental Dispute Centre on March 29, 2025, and had already been executed during an earlier visit on May 12, when the tenant was granted a one-week grace period. The legal team also rejected any suggestion of criminal intent, stating that entry was permitted by the tenant’s maid and later approved by the plaintiff, and that executing a judicial order does not constitute an offence under UAE law. The defence further questioned the motives behind the complaint, pointing to unpaid rent dating back to September 2024 and a 15-day delay between the alleged incident on May 19 and the filing of the police report on June 4. It also highlighted contradictions in the case and the lack of supporting evidence, noting that independent witnesses, including a security guard and a mediator, confirmed permission was sought and granted, while no surveillance footage was produced to substantiate claims of forced entry. The legal team added that the complaint appeared to be an attempt to obstruct a legally sanctioned eviction process.

Court findings

The court reviewed the prosecution’s evidence, which primarily relied on the tenant’s claim that entry had been unauthorized. After examining documents and testimony, the judges concluded there was no evidence of criminal intent—a necessary element for a trespassing conviction. The court emphasised that criminal liability in the UAE requires certainty, not probability.

Applying Article 212 of the Federal Criminal Procedures Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 38 of 2022), the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to meet the legal threshold for conviction.

Verdict

The court acquitted the defendant of all charges, officially clearing him of any wrongdoing. The judgment reinforced the principle that criminal liability cannot be established on unverified claims and highlighted that the accused had acted entirely within the framework of a lawful judicial order.