Dubai court ruling: Muslim spouse settlements cannot be appealed

Dubai: Dubai’s highest court has ruled that settlements reached between Muslim spouses before a court cannot later be challenged before higher courts once they have been recorded and granted the force of an executive instrument.

The Dubai Court of Cassation clarified that when parties in a Muslim personal status dispute agree to settle their claims before the Court of First Instance, and the agreement is officially recorded in the court hearing minutes, the settlement becomes binding and cannot later be contested before the Court of Appeal or the Court of Cassation.

The same legal principle applies to settlements reached before the Court of Appeal.

Legal Consultant Dr Hasan Elhais of Amal Al Rashedi Lawyers and Legal Consultants said the ruling was significant as it reinforced the finality of court-approved settlements.

“The importance of this ruling is that it confirms that an agreement reached between the parties at one stage of litigation prevents any challenge at a higher stage,” he said.

The case involved a Muslim personal status dispute between a husband and wife.

The husband filed a case seeking confirmation that he had divorced his wife, claiming he had issued the divorce through an email sent on June 28, 2025.

The wife filed a counterclaim, stating that she had not received the email and only became aware of the divorce on September 3, 2025.

She sought several financial claims, including spousal maintenance, compensation, deferred dowry, and other rights connected to the marriage.

Her claims also included financial demands related to a company the couple had planned to establish, medical insurance expenses, travel costs and temporary monthly maintenance.

During proceedings before the Court of First Instance, both parties appeared personally before the court and agreed to resolve both the husband’s original claim and the wife’s counterclaim through a settlement.

Under the agreement, the divorce would be officially recorded, and the husband would pay the wife Dh125,000 as a full settlement of all her legal rights arising from the marriage and separation.

The settlement amount covered the deferred dowry, waiting-period maintenance, compensation, spousal maintenance, claims related to the planned company, and medical insurance expenses.

The amount was agreed to be paid in instalments until the full settlement was completed.

On October 15, 2025, the Court of First Instance confirmed the divorce, recorded the settlement agreement and granted it the status of an executive instrument, making it directly enforceable.

The husband challenged the decision before the Court of Appeal, but the court ruled on December 18, 2025, that the appeal was inadmissible.

He then filed a challenge before the Court of Cassation, arguing that he did not understand English, the language in which the settlement agreement was drafted, that no translator was present during the proceedings, and that he had been pressured into accepting the Dh125,000 payment.

The Court of Cassation rejected the challenge and upheld the lower court decisions.

The Court of Cassation explained that Article 81 of the Civil Procedure Law allows parties at any stage of litigation to request that the court record their agreement in the official hearing minutes, provided the settlement does not violate UAE laws, public order or public morals.

The court said the hearing minutes are considered an official document unless they are challenged for forgery. Any agreement attached to those minutes carries the force of an executive instrument.

The court further explained that a judge approving such a settlement does not rule on the dispute itself. Instead, the judge’s role is limited to recording and authenticating the agreement reached between the parties before the court.

Therefore, the court said, approval of the settlement is not considered a judicial judgment and cannot be challenged through an appeal or a cassation request.

The Court of Cassation also dismissed the husband’s argument regarding the absence of a translator.

It found that the official hearing records confirmed that a legal translator had attended the proceedings and provided the required translation.

The court ultimately dismissed the husband’s challenge, ordered him to pay legal costs and ruled that the court deposit be confiscated.