Claim No. CFI 048/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

ALIZZ ISLAMIC BANK S.A.O.C

Claimant

and

ALEF CAPITAL B.S.C.(C) (FORMERLY INVESTRADE COMPANY B.S.C (C))

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE RENE LE MIERE

UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-048-2025/2 dated 11 February 2026 seeking immediate judgment and/or strike out of the Defendant’s limitation defence (the “Immediate Judgment Application”)

AND UPON the Application Hearing listed before H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere on 8 April 2026 to determine the Immediate Judgment Application (the “8 April Hearing”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-048-2025/3 dated 11 March 2026, for the issue of limitation to be determined as a preliminary issue (the “Limitation Application”)

AND UPON the direction of H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere, communicated by the Registry via email on 30 March 2026, that the Court declines to hear the Limitation Application as a preliminary issue at the 8 April Hearing (the “Court’s Direction”)

AND UPON reviewing the parties’ email to the Registry dated 2 April 2026 (the “Parties’ Letters”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant has permission to rely on the witness statement of Ms Haseena Bangash dated 1 April 2026 and its exhibits at the 8 April Hearing.

2. The Claimant has permission to file and serve a short responsive witness statement of no more than 10 pages confined to identified paragraphs of the Bangash statement by no later than 4pm (GST) on 6 April 2026.

3. In the alternative to filing responsive witness evidence, the Claimant may, by no later than 4pm (GST) on 6 April 2026, file and serve a short written notice identifying the specific paragraphs of the witness statement of Ms Haseena Bangash dated 1 April 2026 which the Claimant contends are irrelevant to the issues properly arising at the 8 April Hearing and/or inadmissible as factual evidence.

4. The Claimant’s request to strike out paragraphs of the Defendant’s skeleton argument is refused.

5. The Claimant has permission to file and serve a responsive skeleton argument of no more than 6 pages confined to identified paragraphs of the Bangash statement by no later than 4pm (GST) on 6 April 2026.

6. The Court’s Direction remains effective: the Limitation Application will not be heard on 8 April 2026.

7. The parties may refer to evidence and documents relevant to limitation only insofar as necessary to address the Claimant’s application to strike out the limitation defence and/or the limitation aspects of the immediate judgment application; nothing in these directions prejudges any later determination of limitation.

8. Costs of this procedural dispute are reserved.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 6 April 2026
At: 8am

SCHEDULE OF REASONS

Ruling on the Parties’ Letters of 2 April 2026 (Late Evidence)

Introduction

1. By an application dated 11 February 2026, the Claimant applies for immediate judgment under RDC 24.1 and for strike-out relief, including, in the alternative, strike-out of the limitation defence.

2. The hearing of the Immediate Judgment Application is listed for 8 April 2026. By the Registry’s email dated 3 March 2026, the parties were directed to file skeleton arguments and any documents to be relied upon at the hearing by 4pm (GST) on 1 April 2026.

3. On 30 March 2026, the Registry communicated the Court’s direction that it declines to hear the Defendant’s application for the limitation issue to be determined as a preliminary issue at the 8 April hearing, and that no truncated timelines would be issued for the Limitation Application.

4. On 2 April 2026, the Claimant wrote seeking directions that the Defendant’s witness statement of Ms Haseena Bangash dated 1 April 2026 not be admitted for the 8 April Hearing on the basis that it was served late and without permission, and that certain paragraphs of the Defendant’s skeleton argument which rely on that statement be struck out. The Defendant opposes those requests.

The procedural position

5. The Claimant submits that, under RDC 23.46(2), the Defendant’s evidence in answer was due on 11 March 2026; that no evidence was served by that date; and that no application for an extension of time or permission to rely on late evidence was made. It further submits that the Bangash statement was served late and that its service shortly before the hearing deprives the Claimant of the 14-day period in RDC 23.46(3) within which evidence in reply could ordinarily be served.

6. The Claimant does not contend that it is unable to respond to the Bangash statement within the time remaining before the hearing; rather, it relies on the loss of the ordinary reply period as prejudice.

The applicable approach

7. The exclusion of evidence is a serious sanction. Where late evidence is tendered shortly before a hearing, the Court considers the seriousness of the default, the explanation for it, and whether any prejudice can be cured by proportionate directions short of exclusion, including by confining the use of the evidence, permitting short responsive material, and/or making costs orders.

Decision on the Bangash statement

8. I accept that the Defendant did not serve evidence by the date identified by the Claimant under RDC 23.46(2), and that no formal application for permission to rely on late evidence was made. I also proceed on the footing that the Bangash statement and exhibits were not uploaded by 4pm (GST) on 1 April 2026.

9. Nevertheless, the appropriate and proportionate course is not to exclude the Bangash statement at this stage. The 8 April Hearing is fixed; the evidence was served several days before the hearing; and the Claimant does not contend that it cannot meet the evidence. Exclusion would risk determining a substantial application on an artificially incomplete record and would be disproportionate.

10. The Defendant is therefore granted permission to rely on the Bangash statement and exhibits for the purposes of the 8 April hearing, notwithstanding late service.

11. That permission is subject to limitations. Nothing in this ruling permits the 8 April Hearing to become a mini-trial of disputed factual issues. The use of the Bangash statement must be directed to resisting immediate judgment and/or strike-out and will be assessed accordingly. To the extent the Bangash statement contains argument, submissions on construction, or opinion, it will be treated as such and given such weight (if any) as is appropriate on an application of this kind.

Responsive steps to cure any prejudice

12. To address the Claimant’s complaint that it has been deprived of the ordinary reply period, the Claimant is granted permission to file and serve a short responsive witness statement, limited to matters strictly necessary to meet new factual assertions in the Bangash statement that the Claimant could not reasonably have addressed in its existing evidence.

13. Any responsive statement shall be confined to identified paragraphs of the Bangash statement, shall be limited in length to a concise reply, and shall be filed and served by no later than 4pm (GST) on 6 April 2026.

14. If the Claimant does not wish to serve responsive evidence, it may instead identify in writing, by the same deadline, the paragraphs of the Bangash statement it says are irrelevant to the issues properly arising on the 8 April hearing or inadmissible as factual evidence.

The request to strike out paragraphs of the Defendant’s skeleton

15. The Claimant seeks an order striking out paragraphs of the Defendant’s skeleton which refer to the Bangash statement. In light of the decision granting permission to rely on that statement, the request does not arise in the form advanced. In any event, the Court will not undertake an exercise of striking out parts of a skeleton argument by reference to evidential disputes. At the hearing, the Court will determine what weight (if any) should be given to submissions that depend upon material which is irrelevant, inadmissible, or outside the proper scope of the application.

Material concerning the Defendant’s preliminary issue application on limitation

16. The Court’s Direction stands: the Limitation Application will not be heard on 8 April 2026.

17. However, limitation remains in issue at the 8 April Hearing because the Claimant seeks, in the alternative, strike-out of the limitation defence and advances submissions on limitation within the Immediate Judgment Application. The parties may therefore refer to such evidence and documents as are reasonably necessary to address limitation for the purposes of the RDC 24 / RDC 4.16 assessment only. Nothing in this ruling prejudges whether, how, or when limitation will be finally determined.

Costs

18. The Defendant’s late service has generated a procedural dispute shortly before a fixed hearing. While permission to rely on the Bangash statement is granted, the question of costs arising from this dispute is best determined in light of the overall conduct of the application. Costs of the issues raised by the parties’ letters of 2 April 2026 are reserved.

Orders / Directions

19. The Court orders as follows: