The DIFC Court of First Instance has reaffirmed the procedural finality of its interlocutory orders, dismissing a jurisdictional challenge in a dispute involving a contested Nominee Agreement and alleged forgery. The ruling underscores the Court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of its case management process when faced with attempts to relitigate issues already addressed by co-equal judicial authority.
What is the nature of the dispute between Dimension B+ and Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi and what is the financial stake?
The litigation arises from a contractual dispute concerning a Nominee Agreement dated 1 May 2021, which governs the relationship between the Claimant, Dimension B+ Ltd, and the Defendant, Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi. The Claimant initiated proceedings to recover substantial funds allegedly owed under the terms of this agreement.
The claim commenced on 17 December 2024, the Claimant sought AED 4,750,000 from the Defendant allegedly due pursuant to the Nominee Agreement.
The core of the dispute involves the validity of the underlying agreement and the jurisdictional competence of the DIFC Courts. While the Claimant asserts that the agreement is binding and confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the DIFC, the Defendant contests the legitimacy of the document, alleging that his signature was forged. The outcome of this jurisdictional challenge determines whether the claim for AED 4,750,000 will proceed to trial within the DIFC or be dismissed in favor of proceedings in the Dubai Courts. Further details regarding the case history can be found at the DIFC Courts Judgment Portal.
Which judge presided over the jurisdictional challenge in CFI 094/2024 and in which division was the matter heard?
The application was heard by H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi in the Court of First Instance of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. The hearing took place on 17 September 2025, with the final order and reasons issued on 3 October 2025.
What were the specific legal arguments advanced by Dimension B+ and Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi regarding the DIFC Court's jurisdiction?
The Defendant argued that the DIFC Courts lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the entity in question, Antika Facilities Management Services LLC, is a Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism (DED) registered company located outside the DIFC. He contended that disputes involving partners of a DED-registered entity fall exclusively within the purview of the Dubai Courts. Furthermore, the Defendant alleged that the Nominee Agreement was forged, asserting that his electronic signature was affixed without his consent, thereby rendering the document—and its associated jurisdiction clause—null and void. He also cited parallel proceedings in the Dubai Courts (Case No. 1973/2025) and a criminal complaint regarding the alleged forgery as evidence of the Dubai Courts' priority.
Conversely, the Claimant maintained that the DIFC Courts possess clear jurisdiction.
It maintains that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction pursuant to jurisdiction clauses contained in both the Nominee Agreement dated 1 May 2021 (the “Nominee Agreement”) and the Memorandum of Association of Antika Facilities Management Services LLC (“Antika”).
The Claimant argued that the Nominee Agreement contains express, specific provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the DIFC Courts. Regarding the forgery allegations, the Claimant asserted that the document bears a wet-ink signature and that the Defendant’s criminal complaint had already been administratively dismissed.
What was the precise doctrinal issue the Court had to resolve regarding the Defendant's application to contest jurisdiction?
The Court was tasked with determining whether it should entertain a de novo jurisdictional challenge that effectively sought to revisit the procedural posture established by a prior order. Specifically, the Court had to decide if the Defendant’s reliance on allegations of forgery and the DED registration of the underlying company provided sufficient grounds to override the jurisdictional clauses previously acknowledged by the Court. The doctrinal tension lay in whether the Court could or should re-examine the jurisdictional basis of the claim after a previous order had already set aside a default judgment and directed the matter to proceed under RDC Part 23, without the Defendant successfully demonstrating that the Court lacked the requisite authority to hear the merits of the case.
How did H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi apply the doctrine of judicial finality to the Defendant's application?
Justice Al Sawalehi’s reasoning focused on the procedural constraints governing the Court’s authority. The judge emphasized that the current application could not be used as a vehicle to circumvent the procedural path established by the previous order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser. The Court held that it lacked the authority to revisit or set aside the findings of a co-equal judge.
It is an established principle of this Court that a judge does not have power to revoke, overturn, or set aside the order of another judge of the same level.
By adhering to this principle, the Court effectively insulated the previous procedural directions from the Defendant’s attempt to relitigate the jurisdictional question. The judge determined that the matter must proceed to a Case Management Conference, thereby deferring the substantive arguments regarding the validity of the Nominee Agreement to the trial phase, rather than allowing them to derail the proceedings at the jurisdictional stage.
Which specific statutes and RDC rules were applied by the Court in determining the jurisdictional challenge?
The Court’s decision was grounded in the following legal framework:
- Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 14(b): Cited by the Claimant to establish the statutory basis for the DIFC Courts' exclusive jurisdiction over matters where parties have expressly agreed to such jurisdiction.
- Law No. 12 of 2004, Article 5(A)(2): The predecessor statute to the 2025 Law, which similarly provides the jurisdictional foundation for the DIFC Courts.
- RDC Part 23: The specific Rules of the DIFC Courts under which the Defendant filed his application to contest jurisdiction.
How did the Court utilize the cited authorities to reach its decision?
The Court utilized the cited statutes to validate the Claimant’s position that parties may contractually confer jurisdiction upon the DIFC Courts, regardless of the DED registration status of the underlying entity. The reference to Article 14(b) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 served to reinforce that the contractual agreement between the parties was the primary determinant of jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court’s application of RDC Part 23 was procedural; it served as the mechanism by which the Defendant’s challenge was processed, but the ultimate dismissal was driven by the principle of judicial comity and the finality of the June Order issued by Justice Al Nasser.
What was the final disposition of the application and what orders were made regarding costs?
The Court dismissed the Defendant’s application in its entirety. The specific orders issued were:
1. The Application contesting jurisdiction was dismissed.
2. The June Order (issued by Justice Al Nasser) remains effective.
3. The matter is directed to proceed to a Case Management Conference on a date to be fixed by the Registry.
4. Costs of the application were reserved to the trial Judge, meaning the issue of who bears the legal expenses for this specific challenge will be determined at the conclusion of the trial.
What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners litigating jurisdictional challenges in the DIFC?
This case serves as a reminder that the DIFC Courts will strictly enforce the principle that one judge cannot overturn the order of another judge of the same level. Practitioners should anticipate that once a procedural path is set—such as a direction to proceed to a Case Management Conference after a default judgment is set aside—the Court will be highly resistant to attempts to use jurisdictional challenges as a means of relitigating the same procedural issues. Litigants must ensure that all jurisdictional arguments are robustly presented at the earliest opportunity, as the Court will prioritize the progression of the case toward trial once the procedural framework has been established.
Where can I read the full judgment in Dimension B+ Ltd v Saleh Abdelkarim Hussain Abdelrahman Almaazmi [2025] DIFC CFI 094?
The full judgment can be accessed via the official DIFC Courts website at: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-first-instance/cfi-0942024-dimension-b-ltd-v-saleh-abdelkarim-hussain-abdelrahman-almaazmi-1 or via the CDN mirror: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-first-instance/DIFC_CFI-094-2024_20251003.txt.
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | N/A |
Legislation referenced:
- Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, Article 14(b)
- Law No. 12 of 2004, Article 5(A)(2)
- RDC Part 23