The Court

Having reviewed the documents, and having heard the arguments and the report read out by the Judge-Rapporteur, and after the deliberations and upon the satisfaction of the formal requirements of the appeal;

The facts, as revealed by the appealed judgment and other documents, to the extent necessary for the settlement of the appeal, may be summed up as follows:

The Appellant brought the claim No. 583/2003 against the Respondents, applying for a decision establishing its title to half of (--) company, as an extension of (--) company, and its title to one half of its profits realised during the period from April 1988 to the end of 2002. The Appellant stated that it had established a company in 1987 which it named (--) company. Since at that time the Qatari law prohibited the establishment or ownership of shares in companies, the company was established under the name (--) company, but such name was surrendered to (--) and his two sons, (--) and (--), who were minors at the time and hadestablished a company using the same name. They further signed an authenticated contract with the Appellant to the effect that the Appellant owns one half of the company capital which amounts to 10,000 Riyals. After the company commenced some business (--), the owner of the Appellant entity, was notified of the change in the company name but did not object. Upon denial of the Respondents’ rights in the company, the claim was brought. The court appointed an expert who presented a report in which he proved that the Appellantpresented equipment the value of which, after deduction of an amount already received, was 4,551,987 Riyals, as a share in kind in the capital of the (--) company. The court of first instance ordered the defendant to pay the said amount, and rejected the remaining applications. The two parties lodged appeals No. 280/2006 and 288/2006, respectively. The court combined the two appeals and appointed an expert, who submitted a report. On 29.12.2008 the court issued a judgment confirming the appealed judgment. The Appellant lodged an appeal by cassation which was presented to this Court, at the deliberations chamber, and a hearing session was fixed for its consideration.
As regards the Appellant’s contention that the appealed judgment was deficient initsreasoning, it was based on its rejection of its application to establish its ownership of one half of (--) company, and its entitlement to one half of theprofits since the company’s establishment in 1988 until the end of 2002, despite the expert havingstated that the company is an extension of (--) company,half ofwhich the judgment, without giving the reasons, has proved the Appellant owns. Accordingly, the contents of the said report should be disregarded as defective and necessitating appeal by cassation.
This contention is correct because, although the court of first instance has full jurisdiction to attain comprehension of the facts of the claim out of the evidence introduced therein, and to weigh them against one another, it may not disregard any papers or documents relevant to the rights of the parties which are validly presented by such parties without recording in its judgment, with reasons, the justification fordisregarding such papers or documents; otherwise the judgment becomes deficient. Changing the name of a company, which has obtained juristic personality, to another name does not remove such juristic personality, shall not be considered an establishment of a new personality, other than the first one, and shall have no effect on the rights of the shareholders. Therefore,the appealed judgment which, in line with the Appellant in a matter not subject to appeal, held that the Appellant owned one half of (--) company, which was not registered in the company register, and had commenced some business whereby it became a de facto company with legal personality. However, the judgment thereafter rejected what the Appellant pleaded in its defence, that the name of the said company has changed at a time subsequent to (--) company, and that its rights in the company with its original name have passed to the company with its new name, due to the difference in shareholders of each company. The expert revealed in his report submitted before the appeal court that he has reviewed the (--) company accounts with the Qatar National Bank, number (--) and opened on 7.4.1988 in the name of (--) company, carrying commercial registration No. (--). A letter dated 16.2.1989, a copy of which is attached, was found within the files, and was addressed by (--) company to the bank manager, notifying the latter that the name of (--) company, with registration No. (--) was changed to (--) company, with all the terms and rules of the company remaining unchanged. The gist of the decision in the appealed judgment is that it did not consider what the expert had recorded in his report, despite any potential effect that may impact the opining in the claim. Accordingly, such judgment becomes defective in the sense of being deficient, which renders it partially appealable by way of cassation, with no need to consider the other reasons for the appeal.