An Important Principle on the Court's Authority to Amend the Judgment During the Appellate Proceedings in the Advisory Chamber

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation established a crucial principle regarding the extent of the Appellate Court's authority in amending the appealed judgment during the appellate proceedings, in the advisory chamber. It affirmed that the authority of the Appellate Court is limited solely to either rejecting the appeal, refusing it, affirming the judgment or decision under appeal, or declaring its lapse.

This is in accordance with the legislative provision introduced as an exception stipulated in the third paragraph of Article 167 of the Civil Procedure Law. This exception, being an exception to the rule, cannot be expanded upon or analogized. The text explicitly states that if the Appellate Court finds that the appealed judgment is immune from affirmation, acceptance, legality, or lapse, it must, before issuing its judgment, schedule a pleading session for the appeal. In this session, the parties are notified so that they can submit their documents and defenses, allowing each party to counter what the opposing party has presented in terms of defense or documents.

The implication is that the Appellate Court, in the advisory chamber, is not allowed to amend the appealed judgment, as doing so contradicts logic and the principles of justice. This is because it deprives the opposing party of presenting their defense regarding the documents and the other party's defense relied upon by the court, held in the advisory chamber, which goes against the legislator's intent. Consequently, deviating from this perspective leads to the invalidity of the judgment issued by the Appellate Court, contrary to the appealed judgment, in a dispute not before it.

This matter is related to fundamental procedural matters concerning public policy, and it can be raised for the first time before the Court of Cassation, and the Court itself has the authority to bring it up spontaneously.