Sitting of 7/12/2010
Contestation No. 129 of 2010 - Civil cassation
 

1. General Law - the rules related to the principles of the litigation system and procedures are all related to the General Law that should be observed by the Court of Cassation. Whereas it is established in the jurisdiction of this Court that the rules related to the principles of the litigation system and procedures are all related to the General Law that the Court of Cassation should observe, such that ignorance of the same by the litigants or their default in contestation of its breach and even their non-agreement on any of its provisions should not prevent their application to the dispute being reviewed, so as to ensure its general application to all, free of any defects or deficiency in its completeness;
 
2. The condition for the validity of any litigation upon filing it first time, and upon appealing the judgment related to the same and also upon filing contestation by cassation is that: It should be filed according to proper and valid procedures and the litigant should be competent to litigate. This is conditioned at the time of filing the litigation first time and at the time of appealing the ruling issued and also at the time of filing contestation for cassation.
 
3. Invalidity of the litigation procedures due to incompetence is a periodic renewable disqualification associated with the litigation through all of its stages and it may be furnished as a defense in any status of the litigation and the court may by itself issue a ruling related to the general Law.
 
4. The foundation of competence is the proven legal personality of the litigant, whether he is a natural or juristic person. As such it is not a condition for accepting the litigation but a condition for the validity of its procedures. Therefore, if the party who filed the case or against whom the case is filed is not qualified for adjudication, then the case shall be admissible but the procedures of the case shall be invalid.
 
5. A litigant should observe any change in the identity, competence and status of his opponent against whom the procedures are processed, typical to his position when they are taken.
 
6. Upon issuance of Law No. 18 of 2009 on 15/9/2009 the General Retirement and Pension Authority, represented by the contestant, does not exist and its corporate identity has been withdrawn since that date and the contestant, in view of his capacity, has become incompetent to adjudicate before the law. A ruling for the contested judgment has been issued in favour of the first appellee with respect to his claims against the contestant Authority, although it has lost its corporate identity and the chairman of its board of directors has lost his competence to adjudicate before the law, hence the ruling shall have an invalid effect associated with the General Law and hence it requires cassation.
 
Whereas it is required that the litigant should observe any change in the identity, competence and status of his opponent against whom the procedures are processed typical to his position when they are taken, and that the decree issued by Law No. 18 of 2009 has cancelled some laws and that the said Law, since its issuance on 15/9/2009, has stated in Article 3 that certain articles of Law No. 24 of 2002 related to retirement and pensions are cancelled, including Article 26 which provides that “a public Authority called the General Retirement and Pension Authority shall be established and shall have a corporate identity and separate budget”, and Article 23 which provides that “the chairman of the board shall represent the Authority before the law and in its relations with others”, and that the Prince’s decision No. 48 of 2009 related to the organization of the General Retirement and Social Insurance Authority, which is applicable from its date of issue on 05/8/2009 has stated in Article 2 that “the General Retirement and Social Insurance Authority shall have a corporate identity and a budget included in the budget of the Ministry of Economy and Finance”, and it has also stipulated in Article 18 that “The chairman shall represent the Authority before the courts and in its relations with others”;
 
Therefore, and upon issuance of Law No. 18 of 2009 on 15/9/2009, as mentioned above, the General Authority for Retirement and Pensions represented by the contestant is considered non-existent and its corporate identity has been removed since that date, and the contestant, in view of his capacity, has become incompetent to adjudicate before the law;
 
Whereas the primary judgment has been confined to the issue of the right of jurisdiction to review the case without addressing the merits and ruled in favour of referring the case to the Administrative Circle of the Court of Appeal due to its jurisdiction;
 
Whereas it is shown from the papers that the contested judgment was issued on 18/5/2010 and that a ruling for the contested judgment has been issued in favour of the first appellee with respect to his claims against the contestant Authority, although its corporate identity has been removed and the chairman of its board of directors has lost his competence to adjudicate before the law, hence the ruling shall have an invalid effect associated with the General Law and hence it requires cassation.
 

Merits of the Case
 

On 9/6/2010 a contestation by cassation was filed against the judgment No. 4 of 2010 of the Court of Appeal issued on 18/5/2010, by virtue of a note in which the contestant requested the acceptance of the contest in form and subject by cassation of the contested ruling and by addressing the subject.
 
On the same day the contestant delivered an explanatory memorandum.
On 13-14/6/2010 the appellee was informed of the contestation note.
On 23/6/2010 the appellee delivered a pleading note in which he requested rejection of the contestation.
 
In the hearing of 19/10/2010 the contestation was produced to the Court
in the counseling room and the court saw that it was worthy of consideration and decided a plea hearing.
In the hearing of 2/11/2010 the case was heard before this Circle on the basis of the records available in the hearing report, and the attorney of the appellee adhered to what he had stated in his pleading note. The Court then postponed the ruling to today’s sitting.
 

The Court
 

After reviewing the documents and listening to the report read by the presiding judge, and after prosecution and deliberation;
 
Whereas the contestation has fulfilled its procedural forms;
The facts as shown from the contested ruling and all the papers are summarized as follows:
 
The first appellee has filed the case No. 53 of 2009 before the Administrative Circle of the General Court against the contestant and the second appellee per se requesting the cancellation of the administrative decision, issued by the contestant in his vested capacity as the chairman of the board of directors of the General Authority for Retirement and Pensions dated 26/9/2005, that he has no right to receive his retirement salary for his work with the second appellee, Qatar National Bank, and requesting a ruling in favour of his right to receive such salary and any resulting benefits. In explaining his claim, he stated that he joined the second appellee on 11/5/1991 and subscribed to the Retirement and Pensions Fund and the contestant per se approved his request to purchase the period complementing his service such that his service period shall become twenty years, and that he has paid the value of the complementary period. After he was referred to retirement on 8/3/2006 he was surprised by the decision issued by the contestant per se on 26/5/2009, which ruled that he had no right to receive his pension salary and that the subscriptions paid by him would be returned to him. Accordingly he complained against this decision before the Dispute Settlement Committee by Grievance No. 2 of 2009 and the Committee decided to reject his grievance and hence he filed the case.
 
On 31/12/2009 the court ruled that it is not specialized in kind to review the case and referred it to the Administrative Circle of Appeal for jurisdiction. The case has been reviewed before the said Circle and on 18/5/2010 the court ruled that the first appellee has the right to settle his pension for his service period with the second appellee during the period from 11/5/1991 to 8/3/2006. The contestant per se contested the ruling through cassation and the contestation was referred to this court in the counseling room and decided a session for reviewing it.
 
Whereas it is established in the jurisdiction of this Court that the rules related to the principles of the litigation system and procedures are all related to the general rule that the Court of Cassation should observe such that ignorance of the same by the litigants or their default in contestation of its breach, and even their non-agreement on any of its provisions, should not prevent their application to the dispute being reviewed, so as to ensure its general application to all, free of any defects or deficiency in its completeness; whereas it is conditioned that for a litigation to be valid it should be filed according to proper and valid procedures and that the litigant should be competent for litigation and that this condition should be satisfied at the time of filing the litigation first time and at the time of appealing the ruling, and also at the time of filing contestation for cassation because the invalidity of the litigation procedures due to incompetence is a periodic renewable incompetence associated with the litigation through all its stages and it may be furnished as a defense in any status of the litigation and the court may by itself issue a ruling related to the General Law; it is also established that the foundation of competence is the proven legal personality of the litigant, whether he is a natural or juristic person. As such it is not a condition for accepting the litigation but a condition for the validity of its procedures. Therefore, if the party who filed the case or against whom the case is filed is not qualified for adjudication, then the case shall be admissible but the procedures of the case shall be invalid.
 
Whereas it is required that the litigant should observe any change in the identity, competence and status of his opponent against whom the procedures are processed typical to his position when they are taken, and that the decree issued by Law No. 18 of 2009 has cancelled some laws and that the said Law, since its issuance on 15/9/2009, has stated in Article 3 that certain articles of Law No. 24 of 2002 related to retirement and pensions are cancelled, including Article 26 which provides that “a public Authority called the General Retirement and Pension Authority shall be established that shall have a corporate identity and separate budget”, and Article 23 which provides that “the chairman of the board shall represent the Authority before the law and in its relations with others”, and that the Prince’s decision No. 48 of 2009 related to the organization of the General Retirement and Social Insurance Authority, which is applicable from its date of issue on 05/8/2009, has stated in Article 2 that “the General Retirement and Social Insurance Authority shall have a corporate identity and a budget included in the budget of the Ministry of Economy and Finance”, and it has also stipulated in Article Eighteen that “The chairman shall represent the Authority before the courts and in its relations with others”; therefore and upon issuance of Law No. 18 of 2009 on 15/9/2009 as mentioned above, the General Authority for Retirement and Pensions, represented by the contestant, is considered non-existent and its corporate identity has been removed since that date, and the contestant, in view of his capacity, has become incompetent to adjudicate before the law;
 
Whereas the primary judgment has been confined to the issue of the right of jurisdiction to review the case without addressing the merits and ruled in favour of referring the case to the Administrative Circle of the Court of Appeal due to its jurisdiction;
 
Whereas it is shown from the papers that the contested judgment was issued on 18/5/2010 and that a ruling for the contested judgment has been issued in favour of the first appellee with respect to his claims against the contestant Authority, although its corporate identity has been removed and the chairman of its board of directors has lost his competence to adjudicate before the law, hence the ruling shall have an invalid effect associated with the General Law and hence it requires cassation.
 
Therefore, the court has ruled in favour of cassation of the contested judgment and obligated the first appellee to bear the costs and referred the case to the Court of Appeal, “the Administrative Circle”, for retrial by a Jury comprised of different judges.