The Court

 
After review of the documents and after hearing the arguments and the report read by the presiding judge;
 
The facts as shown from the contested ruling and all the papers may be summarized as follows:
 
The appellee has filed the civil litigation No. 1716/2008 against the contestant and requested a ruling that the contract dated 12/11/2005 has expired and that the property in dispute must be vacated and delivered. In explaining the case the appellee stated that according to this contract the contestant company leased a warehouse located in the industrial area for a monthly sum of ten thousand Riyals for a period of two years effective from 30/12/2005 to 31/12/2007. Since the contractual relationship between them is subject to the provisions of the civil law due to the location of the leased premises in the industrial area that has been removed from its scope of jurisdiction by Law No. 4 of 2008, the appellee notified the company on 12/8/2008 that he is not interested in renewing the rent contract and asked the company to vacate the leased premises. The company failed to comply with the request and accordingly the appellee filed the case. On 31/3/2009 the court ruled that the contract had expired and ordered the contestant to vacate and surrender the leased premises. The contestant company appealed the ruling by appeal No. 614/2009. On 30/12/2009 the Court ruled in favour of the contested ruling. The contestant company contested the ruling in the court of Cassation. The appeal was referred to this Court in the counseling room and a hearing was set for a review.
 
Whereas the objective of Article 4 of Act No. 12 of 2005 regarding the cassation appeal is to empower this court to act ex mero motu for any reason related to public security, even if this is not mentioned in the appeal note or raised by any of the litigants.
 
Whereas Article 6 of the said law provides that the contestant, while presenting the appeal note, may submit therewith a power of attorney of the lawyer that he has appointed to sign this note, otherwise the appeal shall not be accepted and the court may decide the same ex mero motu, provided that the end objective of this procedure is to ensure the correctness of the power of attorney and the scope of its validity for processing a cassation appeal;
 
And if the power of attorney is issued from a representative of a corporate identity, then the attorney appointed for filing the appeal shall submit, along with his power of attorney, proof of the title of the legal representative of the corporate identity in whose name the appeal has been filed so that the court may verify such identity and the scope of his authority in appointing an attorney to file the cassation appeal on behalf of the corporate identity that he represents;
 
Whereas the attorney who files the appeal has submitted, along with his note, a power of attorney issued by the person authorized to sign on behalf of the contestant company but has failed, up to the time of closing the prosecution in the appeal, to enclose with his note proof that the person who has issued the power of attorney is the legal representative of the said company, so that the Court may verify his identity and whether he has the right or not to appeal the rulings through cassation and appoint the attorneys for this purpose, and since this cannot be changed by the certificate dated 26/1/2010 submitted along with the appeal note, even though it states that the signatory of the power of attorney is the legal representative of the contestant company and yet it does not show the identity of the party who issued this certificate so that the Court may know the extent of his authority in appointing the legal representative of the company;
 
Therefore, the appeal is not acceptable. Accordingly the Court has ruled in favour of not accepting the contestation and obligated the contesting company to bear the costs and has confiscated the bail.