Skip to Content

Eoin v Efua [2013] DIFC CFI 026

Eoin v Efua [2013] DIFC CFI 026

March 18, 2014


Claim No.


In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai










1. The Claimant, Eoin filed a Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”) Claim against the Defendant Efua on 13 January 2014.

2. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant overstayed his rental lease and requests the payment of rent for the unpaid period from 1 June 2013 until the present day and also requests that the Defendant vacate the rental unit.

3. On 29 January 2014, the Defendant contested the jurisdiction of the SCT and claimed the DIFC Courts were not competent to hear the dispute based on Article 9 of the Tenancy Contract.

4. The Jurisdiction hearing was held on 17 February 2014. The Defendant continued to contest jurisdiction and the Claimant asserted that the Defendant must vacate the premises and pay the rent due.

5. On 4 March 2014, Judge Omar Al Muhairi denied the Defendant’s application to contest jurisdiction and further ruled that the DIFC Courts had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim and that all parties were to pay their own costs.

6. On 10 March 2014, the Defendant filed an application for permission to appeal the SCT Judgment without a hearing on the grounds that both parties had mutually agreed on the jurisdiction of the Local Shariah Courts in accordance with Article 9 of the Tenancy Contract. No new evidence or facts were asserted by the Defendant.

7. The applicant made an application for permission to appeal the SCT Judgment to the Court of First Instance (“CFI”) which is the appeal Court for SCT Judgments, therefore I have reviewed this application as a Judge of the CFI appeal Court.


8. I strongly support the opinion of Judge Omar Al Muhairi and point out that the Defendant asserted no new facts or evidence to take into account when considering application for permission to appeal the judgment of Judge Omar Al Muhairi, and I am of the view that the appeal would not have a real prospect of success.

9. Additionally, it should be noted that in order to opt-out of the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts, an explicit clause must be present in the Tenancy Agreement clearly indicating that both parties agree not to utilise the DIFC Courts and to rather submit to the jurisdiction of another court. This was not present in this case and Article 9 of the Tenancy Contract certainly does not suffice as an opt-out clause.

10. In the light of the reasons and circumstances set out above, I am of the view that the application for permission to appeal the SCT judgment of Judge Omar Al Muhairi should be refused.

Issued by:
Maha Al Mehairi
Judicial Officer
Date: 18 March 2014
At: 3pm


Privacy Policy

The Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dubai International Financial Centre and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DIFC Courts's Top Management is committed to secure information of all our interested parties.
  2. Information security controls the policies, processes, and measures that are implemented by DIFC Courts in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DIFC Courts is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DIFC Courts and all its affiliates shall provide a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan encompassing the locations within the scope of the ISMS.
  8. Information shall be made available to authorised persons as and when required.
  9. DIFC Courts’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.


The content of the DIFC Courts website is provided for information purposes only and should be disregarded when making decisions on inheritance and any other matters. Whilst every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, the DIFC Courts makes no warranties or representations to you as to the accuracy, authenticity or completeness of the content on this website, which is subject to change at any time without notice. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice by the DIFC Courts or any person employed or connected with it or formerly so employed or connected, to any person on any matter, be it in relation to inheritance, succession planning or otherwise. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer in relation to your personal circumstances and your objectives. The DIFC Courts does not assume any liability and shall not be liable to you for any damages, including but not limited to, direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, losses or expenses arising in connection with this website, its administration and any content or lack thereof found on it. The information on this web site is not to be displayed except in full screen format. Although care has been taken to provide links to suitable material from this site, no guarantee can be given about the suitability, completeness or accuracy of any of the material that this site may be linked to or other material on the internet. The DIFC Courts cannot accept any responsibility for the content of material that may be encountered therein.