Session of 22 April 2010
Civil Cassation Appeal by Cassation No. 104 / 2010

1- That a judgment is capable of being appealed is a matter of public order on which a court issues a decision of its own accord, regardless of the absence of pleading by a litigant.

2- Capability of judgments for appealing, as established by the jurisprudence of this Court, is a matter of public order on which the court issues a decision of its own accord, even if neither of the litigants pleads the same. This is because the rules relating to the principles of adjudication and its procedures relate to public order, which mandates the Cassation Court to ensure their observance, so that ignorance of such rules by the litigants, their failure to contend against their violation, or even their agreement in contravention of such rules should not prevent their imposition on the current litigation. This is meant to ensure the application of such rules on people at large, and that they should not be negatively affected or incompletely applied.

3- Cassation – judgments that are capable of being appealed by cassation – judgments issued before the settlement of the subject-matter shall not be independently appealed by cassation unless they would prevent the continuation of the claim proceedings – a judgment referring the claim to the court having jurisdiction is a continuation of the proceedings, and appealing such judgment would not be valid.

Section 3 of Law No (12) of 2005 on the Situations and Procedures of Appeal by Cassation provides that “No appeal by cassation may be lodged against judgments issued before the settlement of the subject-matter unless this would prevent the continuation of the claim proceedings”. This means that the legislature sets a special rule on judgments capable of being appealed by cassation which should be exclusively applied and that, accordingly, it is possible to appeal before the Court of Appeal against judgments on the subject-matter which finally settle the litigation wholly or in part. As for judgments issued before such settlement they may not be appealed against independently, unless where this would prevent the continuation of the claim proceedings. The judgment appealed against by cassation provided for the cancellation of the judgment issued by the court of first instance that Qatari Courts had no geographical jurisdiction - which is in fact an international jurisdiction - to entertain the dispute, and that Qatari Courts do have jurisdiction so to entertain, in addition to referring the claim to the elementary court for entertaining its subject-matter. Since the current judgment was issued before the settlement of the subject-matter of the claim, and since by referring the same to the court with jurisdiction for settlement would cause the discontinuation of the claim proceedings, this appeal by cassation is thereby not allowable.

The Court  
Having reviewed the documents, heard the report read out by the Presiding Judge and heard the pleadings, and after due deliberation on the appeal by cassation which satisfied its formal requirements;

The facts, as revealed in the judgment appealed by cassation and other documents, may be summarised as follows. The Respondent brought the claim No 182/2008 – labour – general – applying for a judgment ordering the Respondent University to pay thereto the amount of 232,797 Canadian Dollars, or its equivalent in Qatari Royals. He stated that by virtue of a contract commencing on 12.9.2007 and terminating on 31.7.2010 he worked with the Appellant at an annual salary of 90,132 Canadian Dollars and 50 Canadian Dollars per day for a maximum of 300 days. On 24.9.2008, after one year from the beginning of his employment contract, the Respondent was jolted by a notice that he had not passed the probation period and the termination of his contract on 12.10.2008, which is considered as an unfair dismissal that entails all the payment of all his salaries for the two remaining contract years, and end of service indemnity for the said period. Accordingly he brought the claim. The court issued a judgment that it had no geographical jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Respondent lodged against the judgment an appeal No 1085/2009. On 10.3.2010 the court issued a judgment cancelling the appealed judgment. It also decided that the elementary court had jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and referred it to such court as is, for trial before a civil circuit other than the one issuing the appealed judgment. The Respondent University lodged against such judgment an appeal by cassation, which was presented before this Court, at the deliberation chamber, where it fixed a session for its consideration.

According to established jurisprudence of this Court, the capability of judgments to be appealed against is a matter of public order in which the court decides of its own accord, regardless of pleading by a litigant. This is because rules pertaining to the principles and procedures of adjudication relate to public order, which mandates the Cassation Court to ensure their observance, so that ignorance of such rules by the litigants, their failure to contend against their violation, or even their agreement in contravention of such rules, should not prevent their imposition on the current litigation. This is meant to ensure the application of such rules on people at large, and that they should not be negatively affected or incompletely applied. Section 3 of Law No (12) of 2005 on the Situations and Procedures of Appeal by Cassation provides that “No appeal by cassation may be lodged against judgments issued before the settlement of the subject-matter unless this would prevent the continuation of the claim proceedings”. This means that the legislature sets a special rule on judgments capable of being appealed by cassation which should be exclusively applied and that, accordingly, it is possible to appeal before the Court of Appeal against judgments on the subject-matter which finally settle the litigation wholly or in part. As for judgments issued before such settlement they may not be appealed against independently, unless where this would prevent the continuation of the claim proceedings. The judgment appealed against by cassation provided for the cancellation of the judgment issued by the court of first instance that Qatari Courts had no geographical jurisdiction - which is in fact an international jurisdiction - to entertain the dispute, and that Qatari Courts do have jurisdiction so to entertain, in addition to referring the claim to the elementary court for entertaining its subject-matter. Since the current judgment was issued before the settlement of the subject-matter of the claim, and since by referring the same to the court with jurisdiction for settlement would cause the discontinuation of the claim proceedings, this appeal by cassation is thereby not allowable.

Therefore
The Court hereby issues this judgment that it is not allowable so to appeal by cassation, orders the Appellant to pay the costs, and that the surety be expropriated.