By: Ashraf Feshawi – Senior Of Counsel
The Civil Circuit of the Court of Cassation (“Court”), in its judgment in Cassation Appeal No. 1305 of 2024, established an important principle: enforcement of foreign judgments under Qatari law must be pursued through the ordinary procedures for filing a lawsuit. In accordance with Articles 31 and 34 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law (“CCPL”), this requires filing a statement of claim with the court registry and serving it on the opposing parties so they may appear at a specific hearing date set in advance. This is not only to uphold the principle of adversarial proceedings—considered a matter of public order—but also in recognition of practical considerations that enable the parties to clarify their representation and appearance before the foreign court, and to demonstrate whether a prior judgment has been issued by Qatari courts in respect of the same dispute. Furthermore, parties must be afforded the opportunity to present their defences and objections regarding the remaining conditions required for the enforcement of the judgment.
The Court further held that enforcement must be ordered by a reasoned judgment issued by the competent judge, as it constitutes a judicial act rather than an administrative or supervisory act. Accordingly, the judge must personally undertake this function and may not delegate it to anyone lacking judicial authority. Therefore, it is invalid for enforcement to be granted by way of an endorsement on a pre-printed form containing all the statutory conditions for enforcement of a foreign judgment, which is examined and marked as satisfying such conditions by someone other than the judge, and thereafter merely endorsed by the judge as “no objection to enforcement.” Likewise, enforcement may not be granted by way of an order on petition, since such orders do not follow the ordinary procedures for instituting proceedings, as they are issued in the absence of the opposing party and do not give rise to adversarial litigation, which the legislature expressly required in an action seeking an order for the enforcement of a foreign judgment.
Facts of the Case
The dispute giving rise to this principle concerned an application submitted by the respondent company to the Enforcement Judge in the State of Qatar, seeking recognition and enforcement of a judgment issued by the Court of Appeal in the Republic of Iraq. The Execution Judge endorsed the request with the phrase: “No objection to recognition and registration for enforcement”. On that basis, compulsory enforcement measures were initiated against the appellant. The appellant appealed the decision (Appeal No. 392/2024 Civil Appeal), seeking annulment of the Enforcement Judge’s decision on the grounds that the order was void as it had been issued in its absence and without notification of any scheduled hearing. It further argued that, in substance, the order constituted a judicial ruling that failed to comply with the formal requirements of judgments and judicial procedures. The appellant had not been summoned to appear, no hearing had been convened, and it was not afforded the opportunity to address its standing or the fulfilment of the statutory conditions for the enforcement of a foreign judgment.
It is well established that, as a matter of law, administrative or supervisory orders differ from judicial judgments. Orders issued by a judge in the exercise of his supervisory authority, rendered in the absence of the parties and without reasoning, do not acquire res judicata effect, nor does the judge exhaust his jurisdiction by issuing them. By contrast, judicial acts undertaken by courts in their legally prescribed composition result in judgments possessing defined characteristics and mandatory elements not required in supervisory orders.
Article 379 of the CCPL, as amended by Law No. 13 of 2005, provides:
Judgments and orders issued in a foreign country may be ordered to be enforced in Qatar under the same conditions prescribed by the law of that country for the enforcement therein of Qatari judgments and orders. The order for enforcement shall be sought by summoning the opposing party to appear before the Execution Judge in accordance with the ordinary procedures for filing a lawsuit.
This clearly indicates that recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Qatar requires summoning the opposing party in accordance with ordinary litigation procedures. What is issued by the Enforcement Judge in such proceedings is therefore a judicial ruling issued pursuant to judicial authority—not an administrative or supervisory order—even if it does not contain all formal elements ordinarily required of judgments.
This interpretation is supported by the settled jurisprudence of the Court, which has held:
In determining whether a decision is supervisory or judicial in nature, the governing criterion is the rule of law. Orders issued by a judge in the exercise of supervisory authority, in the absence of the parties and without reasoning, do not acquire res judicata effect, nor does the judge exhaust his jurisdiction by issuing them. They therefore differ from judicial acts undertaken by courts in their legally prescribed formation as a judicial panel. What is issued by such courts in the exercise of their judicial function is a judgment possessing specific characteristics, and the law requires it to contain certain mandatory particulars not required in an order issued in the exercise of supervisory authority… If the appealed judgment departs from this view and concludes that the subject of the appeal concerns a decision issued by the Execution Judge rather than a judgment, and on that basis rules that the appeal is inadmissible, it is thereby flawed in a manner warranting its cassation for this reason alone, without the need to examine the remaining grounds of appeal.[1]
The appellant also argued that the order failed to comply with the formal structure of judicial judgments and that the statutory conditions for enforcement under Article 380 had not been met.[2]
After the appeal had been deliberated in hearings, the Court of Appeal rendered its judgment declaring that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute on the basis that the appealed decision had been issued as an order on petition, and that the proper method of challenge was by way of grievance, not by appeal.
Subsequently, the appellant filed Cassation Appeal No. 1305/2024 against this judgment, alleging that the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the law by characterising the first-instance decision as an order on petition, whereas its true legal characterisation was that of a judicial judgment—even if it did not comply with the formal structure of judicial judgments. The appellant further contended that the decision had been issued in violation of the law, as it was rendered without the establishment of adversarial judicial proceedings as required under Article 379 of the CCPL referred to above.
Established Principles
The Court allowed the appeal, annulled the enforcement order, and established the following principles:
- It is well established in the jurisprudence of the Court that the characterisation of claims in a lawsuit is determined not by the literal wording or terminology used in framing them, but by the true substance and intended meaning of the claimant’s requests, taking into account the factual basis and justification presented. The trial court must assign the claim its proper legal description as derived from its facts, without being bound by the parties’ own characterisation, within the limits of the cause of action and the relief sought. This ensures that a claimant is not deprived of a right that might not have been lost had the proper characterisation been examined before addressing other substantive issues of the disputed right. Thus, the characterisation of claims involves determining their legal nature and the essential legal effects that must result from them. This is a legal issue subject to the supervision of the Court of Cassation, which may assign the correct legal characterisation to the established facts, provided that it does not rely on facts other than those ascertained by the trial court.
- It is further established that rules relating to public order must be observed by the judge, who is required to ensure that the parties comply with them in order to guarantee their universal and uniform application, free from any impairment or deficiency. Among such rules are the procedures of litigation, all of which are considered matters of public order.
- The provisions of Articles 379 and 380 of the CCPL demonstrate the legislature’s intent that an order for enforcement of a foreign judgment must be sought through the ordinary procedures for instituting proceedings. Pursuant to Articles 31 and 34 of the same law, this requires filing a statement of claim with the court registry and serving it upon the opposing parties so that they may appear at a specified hearing date known in advance. This requirement serves the legislative purpose underlying the provision, which is not limited to safeguarding the principle of adversarial proceedings—considered a matter of public order and a fundamental tenet of litigation in Islamic Sharia and all judicial systems—but also reflects practical considerations.
These considerations recognise that the parties themselves are best positioned to clarify their representation and appearance before the foreign court, and are most knowledgeable as to whether a prior judgment has been issued by Qatari courts in respect of the same dispute. Moreover, they have the legal right to be afforded the opportunity to raise their defences and objections concerning the remaining statutory conditions for enforcement.
- To achieve the foregoing, enforcement of a foreign judgment requires the initiation of judicial proceedings—unlike domestic judgments and arbitral awards—and must be effected through a reasoned judgment issued by the competent judge. Enforcement of a foreign judgment, in particular, constitutes a purely judicial act. It is neither a supervisory nor an administrative act. It therefore necessarily requires the judge to personally undertake the process and verify the fulfilment of the conditions for enforcement. Under no circumstances may the judge delegate this function to a person who does not possess judicial authority.
That requirement cannot be satisfied by hastily issuing an enforcement order based on a pre-printed form containing all or some of the statutory conditions for enforcing a foreign judgment, with boxes to be marked “yes” or “no” next to each condition, and then examined and reviewed by someone other than the judge, annotated with a legal opinion, and thereafter merely endorsed by the Execution Judge as “no objection to enforcement.” While such a mechanism might be suitable for administrative functions within the State, it contradicts the very concept and foundations of the judiciary and the nature of litigation, for which the legislature has prescribed procedures designed to enable litigants to debate their disputes and freely present their defences. The legislature has entrusted the judge with the responsibility of making a definitive determination as to whether the foreign judgment is consistent with public order, does not infringe upon the exclusive judicial jurisdiction of the State, and does not prejudice the res judicata effect of judgments rendered by its courts.
Such matters are regarded by the legislature as essential preliminary requirements for the enforceability of a foreign judgment within the territory of the State. Otherwise, a foreign judgment would be accorded preferential treatment over national judgments—which are themselves rendered in compliance with public order, the foundations of the State, and its principles—by granting it through a mere administrative form simply upon completion of its entries. Such a practice could undermine state sovereignty, which all nations are keen to uphold by reserving the authority to enforce foreign judgments exclusively to their national judiciary. This ensures that the foreign judgment is carefully scrutinised and that a reasoned judicial decision is issued confirming the permissibility of its enforcement. Only then may the foreign judgment be vested with the attributes of validity, affirmed as just, clothed with legitimacy, endowed with res judicata effect, and rendered enforceable in respect of the State’s sovereignty over its territory.
- It is well established in the jurisprudence of the Court that where an issue previously adjudicated with finality is fundamental, unchanged in nature, and was fully debated between the parties in the first action, and its determination was conclusively settled between them by the initial judgment, and where that very issue forms the basis of a claim subsequently raised by either party in a second lawsuit, the prior judgment acquires the authority of res judicata with respect to that fundamental issue between the same parties.
Accordingly, the parties are precluded—whether by way of claim or defence—from disputing any other right whose existence or non-existence depends upon that issue which has already decided between them. Such preclusion relates to public order; therefore, it may be invoked by the parties, and may also be raised by the Court of its own motion, provided that all factual elements enabling its determination are presented before the trial court. It may likewise be invoked for the first time before the Court because the authority of judgments is more deserving of respect and more closely connected to public order than any other matter, given that disregarding it would perpetuate disputes, destabilise vested rights, and undermine confidence in justice.
- The form titled Arab Judicial Judgment available at the court registry contains the following phrases:
a. “Statement of Claim”;
b. “Certificate that the judgment has acquired the force of res judicata, unless otherwise stated therein”;
c. “Official full copy of the judgment certified by the competent authority”;
d. “Proof of proper service of the judgment upon the defendant, in case of a judgment in absentia”;
e. “Certificate of non-enforcement”;
f. “Legalisation of the judicial judgment by the competent authorities”; and
g. A declaration that “Qatari courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute in which the judgment or order was issued, and that the foreign courts which rendered it had jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of international judicial jurisdiction prescribed by their law”.
Each phrase has an accompanying tick-box stating “yes” or “no”, followed by a legal opinion stating: “Permission is granted to file an action for affixing the executory formula to complete the missing conditions according to the latest submission made in respect of this judgment” which is to be reviewed by a “legal researcher,” and thereafter endorsed by the Execution Judge with the phrase: “No objection to recognition and enforcement”.
Such a form, in relation to a foreign judgment and in the manner in which it is formulated, constitutes nothing less than an impermissible conflation of administrative functions with judicial acts. It effectively entails the judge relinquishing his judicial authority to another person described merely as a “legal researcher,” whose legal capacity or connection to the judicial function is unspecified, to verify the fulfilment of the conditions for the enforcement of a foreign judgment and the safeguarding of state sovereignty through the mere ticking of boxes marked “yes” or “no”. Completing the form is done without scheduling a hearing to consider the request, without summoning the judgment debtor in observance of the principle of adversarial proceedings, without affording the parties the opportunity to present their defences, and without the judge personally scrutinising the judgment to ascertain the fulfilment of the conditions for its enforcement.
Such requirements are not imposed on the enforcement of domestic judgments, nor for arbitral awards, once an annulment action has been rejected or the time limit for filing such an action has lapsed. The legislature insisted upon imposing them specifically in relation to foreign judgments—whether in Qatar or in all other jurisdictions—based on a fundamental and essential rationale grounded in the preservation of state sovereignty over its territory and the refusal to submit to foreign judicial authority. These principles cannot be compromised, waived, neglected, or delegated to anyone other than the judge himself, who must examine and determine them through a fully reasoned judicial decision satisfying all legal requirements.
- The ruling of the Court of Appeal, which characterised the order granting enforcement as merely an order on petition and, on that basis, declared itself without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, is contrary to both fact and law. It contradicts two prior rulings of the Court in Cassation Appeal No. 116 of 2023 and Cassation Appeal No. 498 of 2024, both of which conclusively resolved, between the same parties and in relation to the same foreign judgment, the fundamental issue that recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments must be pursued through the ordinary procedures for instituting litigation proceedings.
In our view, this judgment rendered by the Court establishes an important principle that strengthens the proper administration of justice. It protects parties from being confronted with the sudden enforcement of a foreign judgment that may not satisfy the statutory conditions for enforcement in Qatar, and whose execution procedures could result in significant harm to the judgment debtor. Accordingly, it affirms that strict verification of the requisite legal conditions must precede any order for enforcement of a foreign judgment within Qatar.
[1] Qatar Court of Cassation, Civil and Commercial Circuit, Judgment No. 197/2011 (Civil Cassation).
[2] Article 380 of the CCPL provides: No order for enforcement may be granted except after verifying the following: 1- That the courts of the State of Qatar do not have exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute in which the judgment or order was rendered, and that the foreign courts which issued it had jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of international judicial jurisdiction prescribed by their law. 2- That the parties to the lawsuit in which the judgment was rendered were duly summoned to appear and were properly represented. 3- That the judgment or order has acquired the force of res judicata in accordance with the law of the court that rendered it. 4- That the judgment or order does not conflict with a prior judgment or order rendered by a court in Qatar, and that it does not contain anything contrary to public order or morals therein.
