Claim No. CFI 094/2024

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

DIMENSION B+ LTD

Claimant

and

SALEH ABDELKARIM HUSSAIN ABDELRAHMAN ALMAAZMI

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

UPON the Claim Form dated 17 December 2024

AND UPON the Default Judgment of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 27 May 2025 (the “Default Judgment”)

AND UPON the Order of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 19 June 2025 setting aside the Default Judgment and directing the Defendant to file a Part 23 Application to contest the jurisdiction of DIFC Courts (the “June Order”)

AND UPON the Defendant’s Application No. CFI-094-2024/4 dated 3 July 2025 contesting the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts (the “Application”)

AND UPON the oral and written submissions and evidence filed by both parties

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Claimant and Counsel for the Defendant in the Application hearing held before H.E. Justice Shamlan Al Sawalehi on 17 September 2025

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Application is dismissed.

2. The June Order remains effective.

3. The matter shall proceed to a Case Management Conference on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

4. Costs of this Application are reserved to the trial Judge.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton Assistant Registrar Date of Issue: 3 October 2025 At: 9am

Introduction

1. This is the Court’s judgment on the Defendant’s Application made pursuant to Part 23 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”).

2. The Defendant seeks an order that the DIFC Courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim brought by the Claimant in these proceedings. He seeks for the Court to dismiss the claim and to award him costs.

3. The Claimant resists the Application. 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”).

4. For the reasons set out below, the Application is dismissed.

Procedural Background

5. The claim commenced on 17 December 2024, the Claimant sought AED 4,750,000 from the Defendant allegedly due pursuant to the Nominee Agreement.

6. On 27 May 2025, Default Judgment was entered against the Defendant.

7. On 4 June 2025, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service indicating an intention to contest jurisdiction, together with an application to set aside the Default Judgment.

8. On 19 June 2025, H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser set aside the Default Judgment, and the Defendant was directed to file a jurisdictional challenge pursuant to RDC Part 23.

9. The Defendant filed the present Application on 3 July 2025, accompanied by written submissions and supporting documents.

Applicant’s Submissions

10. The Defendant’s primary submission is that the DIFC Courts lack jurisdiction because Antika, the company whose shares are in issue, is a Dubai Department of Economy and Tourism (“DED”) registered company with its registered office in Bur Dubai, outside the DIFC.

11. The Defendant further argues that disputes between partners of a DED company fall exclusively within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Dubai Courts.

12. The Defendant contends that the Nominee Agreement is a forged and fabricated document. He asserts that his electronic signature was affixed to the agreement without his consent and that he never signed it.

13. On this basis, he submits that the Claimant cannot rely upon the jurisdiction clause in the Nominee Agreement, as the agreement is null and void.

14. He relies further on the fact that he has filed claims in the Dubai Courts, including Case No. 1973/2025 (Partial Commercial), in respect of his entitlement to profits from Antika. He argues that these proceedings demonstrate the competence and priority of the Dubai Courts.

15. The Defendant also refers to a criminal complaint lodged in Dubai concerning the alleged forgery of the Nominee Agreement, which he contends undermines the Claimant’s reliance upon that document.

16. He invites the Court to dismiss the claim, to exclude the evidence of Ms Tatiana Khoury on grounds of alleged partiality, and to award him costs, fees, and damages.

Respondent’s Submissions

17. The Claimant opposes the Application on several grounds.

18. The Claimant submits that the Nominee Agreement contains express, clear, and specific provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the DIFC Courts, as required by Article 14(b) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 and its predecessor Article 5(A)(2) of Law No. 12 of 2004.

19. It points out that the Memorandum of Association of Antika also contains a DIFC Courts jurisdiction clause.

20. The Claimant argues that the Defendant has produced no credible evidence to support his allegation of forgery. It maintains that the Nominee Agreement bears a wet-ink signature of the Defendant and that the original document is available for inspection.

21. The Claimant further submits that the Defendant’s criminal complaint has been administratively dismissed and thus cannot deprive the Court of jurisdiction.

22. With respect to the Dubai Courts proceedings, the Claimant notes that its claim in the DIFC Courts was filed before the Defendant’s Dubai claims, and that in any event, jurisdiction may be conferred by agreement regardless of Antika’s DED registration.

23. Finally, the Claimant characterises the Application as frivolous, misleading, and wholly without merit. It seeks dismissal of the Application together and seeks indemnity costs.

Discussion

24. The issue before the Court is whether it should now determine jurisdiction on the merits or whether, in light of the June Order, the matter should proceed in the ordinary course of proceedings.

25. 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.

26. The June Order set aside the Default Judgment and directed the Defendant to file a jurisdictional challenge. It remains binding unless it is overturned on appeal. No appeal has been filed.

27. While both parties have advanced detailed submissions on jurisdiction, the Court considers that it would not be appropriate at this stage to depart from the procedural course charted by the June Order.

28. The proper route now is for the case to proceed to a Case Management Conference, at which directions will be given for the orderly exchange of pleadings, evidence, and submissions.

29. For present purposes, however, the Court finds no basis to revoke or revisit the June Order, nor any basis to bring these proceedings to an end without following the ordinary procedural route.

Conclusion

30. The Application is dismissed.

31. The June Order remains effective.

32. The matter shall proceed to a Case Management Conference on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

33. Costs of this Application are reserved to the trial Judge.