Cassation No. 890 of 2019 (Administrative)
Issued on 12/02/2020
Panel: Chief Judge/Mohammed Abdul Rahman Al Jarrah - Head of the Chamber - and Counsellors/ Judges Ashraf Mohammed Shehab and Sabri Shamsuddin.
1- The Lawsuit filed on 6/6/2018, for the annulment of the contested decision with respect to the transfer and change of job title of the Respondent, after the issuance of the decision on 3/1/2018 and the grievance filed against it on 9/1/2018, whereas the documents contained no evidence proving that she has been informed of the administration's reply to her grievance, shall be deemed to have been instituted after the lapse of the sixty-day legal time-limit following the ipso facto rejection of the grievance.
2- A plea for dismissal of the lawsuit for having been filed against a party lacking standing shall be deemed a substantive plea that may be brought at any time before the trial court including its two levels.
3- Inferring whether or not a party lacks standing shall be subject to the exclusive discretion of the trial court, as long as such discretion is based on valid reasons established in the documents, away from any violation of the law.
4- The lawsuit filed by the Respondent, for annulment of the decision terminating her service, against the Appellant – representative of ... Establishment rather than the Establishment that has issued the Decision shall be deemed filed against a party lacking standing.
1) Administrative decision. Time-limit. Notice serving. Grievance. Annulment Lawsuit. Judgment “flawed substantiation”. Reversal “accepted grounds”.
- A lawsuit for annulment of administrative decisions shall not be accepted after the lapse of sixty days from the date of publication of the contested administrative decision, or of serving notice of said decision to the concerned party, or of his proven knowledge of said decision.
- The time-limit for accepting lawsuits for annulment of administrative decisions shall be interrupted if a grievance is filed to the administration, and the grievance shall be decided upon within sixty days from the date of filing. The lapse of sixty days from the date of filing the grievance without any reply shall be deemed as a rejection thereof.
- Example.
2) Trial court “its discretionary power”. Pleas “plea for dismissal of the lawsuit”. Standing. Judgment “flawed substantiation”. Reversal “accepted grounds”.
- A plea for dismissal of the lawsuit for having been filed against a party lacking standing shall be deemed a substantive plea that may be brought at any time before the trial court including its two levels.
- Inferring whether or not a party lacks standing shall be deemed a substantive matter, as long as there are valid reasons established in the documents, away from any violation of the law.
- Example.
1- Whereas it is prescribed as per the provision of Article (84) of the Civil Procedures Law that a lawsuit for annulment of administrative decisions shall not be accepted after the lapse of sixty days from the date of publication of the contested administrative decision, or of serving notice of said decision to the concerned party, or of his proven knowledge of said decision; however, such time-limit will be interrupted if a grievance is filed to the administration, and such grievance shall be decided upon within sixty days from the date of filing. The lapse of sixty days from the date of filing the grievance without any reply shall be deemed as a rejection thereof.
Whereas it is established in the documents that the contested decision transferring the Respondent and changing her job title was issued on 3/1/2018 and she has filed a grievance against said decision on 1/9/2018; whereas the documents contained no evidence proving that she has been informed of the administration's reply to her grievance; thus, the lapse of sixty days from the date of filing the grievance shall be considered as a rejection thereof; and as she has filed her lawsuit on 6/6/2018 after the lapse of the sixty-day time limit following the ipso facto rejection of the grievance; thus, the lawsuit for annulment of the aforementioned decision shall be deemed to have been filed after the lapse of the time-limit set; and whereas the court has not adhered to said view in the contested judgment; therefore, it necessitates its reversal in this respect.
2- Whereas it was prescribed as per the ruling of the present court that a plea for dismissal of a lawsuit for having been filed against a party lacking standing shall be deemed a substantive plea that may be brought at any time before the trial court including its two levels; and although inferring whether or not a party lacks standing shall be deemed a factual matter that shall be subject to the exclusive discretion of the trial court, as long as such discretion is based on valid reasons established in the documents, away from any violation of the law.
Whereas it is established in the documents that the decision terminating the service of the Respondent was issued by the Board of Trustees of ... Establishment; thus, said Establishment shall be deemed to have standing in the lawsuit to be filed against said decision, on the ground that it was issued by said Establishment; despite the Respondent’s allegations the decision was issued by Ms./..., the representative of the Appellant - ... Establishment -; as said allegations shall be rejected since the aforementioned Ms. ... has signed the contested judgment on behalf of the Board of Trustees of... Establishment in her capacity of representative of said Establishment rather than a representative of the Appellant; despite as well the Respondent’s allegations that the Appellant has appointed her and the authority legally having competence to terminate her service shall be same one having competence to appoint her; thus, the Appellant shall be deemed the one to have standing in the lawsuit, since such allegations shall be deemed rejected since they merely constitute objections to the validity of the contested judgment and the extent of its legality for being issued by a person lacking competence; and examining such matter requires looking into the merits; which shall follow the examination of standing in the lawsuit, that shall be deemed to exist if the decision issued is attributed to the party having issued it, even in the event it is flawed with lack of competence; hence, based on the aforementioned and taking into account that the party - ... Establishment having issued the contested decision lacks competence in this respect, the Lawsuit shall be deemed to have been filed against a party lacking standing with respect to the request of annulment of the decision terminating the Respondent’s service, and shall therefore be rejected; and Whereas the court has not adhered to that view in the contested judgment; thus, it necessitates its rejection in this regard.
The court
Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and all cassation documents - the Respondent has filed Lawsuit No. 3808 of 2018 (Administrative- Plenary – Sharjah) on 6/6/2018, administrative – plenary – Sharjah, on 6/6/2018, against the Appellant, requesting the annulment of Decision No. 49 of 2018 whereby she has been dismissed from service, in addition to the consequences resulting from said decision, and the annulment of the decision to change her job title from Deputy Director of the Human Resource and Information Technology Department to Supervisor of ... and ... Center and the consequences resulting from said decision, while preserving her right to compensation based on the ground that on 3/1/2018 a decision was issued to transfer her and change her job title in violation of the law, then she was surprised by the issuance of a decision to dismiss her service on 16/4/2018; and she objects to said decision on the ground that it is not based on a valid reason, and that the offences with which she was charged are not commensurate with the penalty of dismissal from service, in addition to the abuse of power; and she finally filed the aforementioned requests.
In the session of 29/1/2019, the court ruled to annul the two contested decisions and the resulting consequences. The Appellant has field Appeal No. 331 of 2019 against that judgment. In the session dated 28/10/2019, Sharjah Federal Court of Appeal has ruled to confirm the appealed judgment; thus, the Appellant has filed the present Cassation.
Whereas the court has examined the Cassation in the deliberation room, it considered that it is worthy of hearing, and has set a date for the hearing.
Whereas the Cassation was based on three grounds whereby the Appellant objects to the contested judgment in the second ground stating that it erred in the application of the law, was insufficiently substantiated and contained flaws in reasoning, as the Appellant has filed a plea for dismissal of the lawsuit for annulment of the contested two decisions for having been filed after the lapse of the sixty-day time-limit set for appeals against administrative decisions issued in violation of the provisions of Article (84) Bis of the Civil Procedure Law; however, the court has not adhered to that view in the contested judgment; thus, it necessitates its reversal.
Whereas this objection is apposite regarding the request of annulment of the contested decision of transfer and change of job title, as it is prescribed as per the provision of Article (84) of the Civil Procedures Law that a lawsuit for annulment of administrative decisions shall not be accepted after the lapse of sixty days from the date of publication of the contested administrative decision, or of serving notice of said decision to the concerned party, or of his proven knowledge of said decision; however, said time-limit shall be interrupted if a grievance if filed to the administration, and the grievance shall be decided upon within sixty days from the date of filing. The lapse of sixty days from the date of filing the grievance without any reply shall be deemed as a rejection thereof.
Whereas it is established in the documents that the contested decision transferring the Respondent and changing her job title was issued on 3/1/2018 and she has filed a grievance against said decision on 1/9/2018; whereas the documents contained no evidence proving that she has been informed of the administration's reply to her grievance; thus, the lapse of sixty days from the date of filing the grievance shall be considered as a rejection thereof; and as she has filed her lawsuit on 6/6/2018 after the lapse of the sixty-day time limit following the ipso facto rejection of the grievance; thus, the lawsuit for annulment of the aforementioned decision shall be deemed to have been filed after the lapse of the time-limit set; and whereas the court has not adhered to said view in the contested judgment; therefore, it necessitates its reversal in this respect.
Whereas the appellant objects to the contested judgment in the third point of the first ground stating that it violated law and erred in its application, as the contested decision terminating the service of the Respondent has been issued by ... Establishment; and thus the latter shall be deemed the party against which the lawsuit is to be filed; however the Respondent has not filed any lawsuit against said Establishment at any stage of the proceedings; thus, the lawsuit shall be dismissed for having been filed against a party lacking standing. However, the court has rejected the plea for dismissal based on that ground in violation of the law, and necessitates its reversal.
Whereas this objection is apposite since it is prescribed as per the ruling of the present court that a plea for dismissal of a lawsuit for having been filed against a party lacking standing shall be deemed a substantive plea that may be brought at any time before the trial court including its two levels; and although inferring whether or not a party lacks standing shall be deemed a factual matter that shall be subject to the exclusive discretion of the trial court, as long as such discretion is based on valid reasons established in the documents, away from any violation of the law.
Whereas it is established in the documents that the decision terminating the service of the Respondent was issued by the Board of Trustees of ... Establishment; thus, said Establishment shall be deemed to have standing in the lawsuit to be filed against said decision, on the ground that it was issued by said Establishment; despite the Respondent’s allegations the decision was issued by Ms./..., the representative of the Appellant - ... Establishment -; as said allegations shall be rejected since the aforementioned Ms. ... has signed the contested judgment on behalf of the Board of Trustees of... Establishment in her capacity of representative of said Establishment rather than a representative of the Appellant; despite as well the Respondent’s allegations that the Appellant has appointed her and the authority legally having competence to terminate her service shall be same one having competence to appoint her; thus, the Appellant shall be deemed the one to have standing in the lawsuit, since such allegations shall be deemed rejected as they merely constitute objections to the validity of the contested judgment and the extent of its legality for being issued by a person lacking competence; and examining such matter requires looking into the merits; which shall follow the examination of standing in the lawsuit, that shall be deemed to exist if the decision issued is attributed to the party having issued it, even in the event it is flawed with lack of competence; hence, based on the aforementioned and taking into account that the party –
... Establishment having issued the contested decision lacks competence in this respect, the Lawsuit shall be deemed to have been filed against a party lacking standing with respect to the request of annulment of the decision terminating the Respondent’s service, and shall therefore be rejected; and whereas the court has not adhered to that view in the contested judgment; thus, it necessitates its rejection in this regard.
Whereas the dispute is suitable for adjudication and the court addresses its adjudication as per the provisions of Article (184) of the Civil Procedure Law.
Therefore, based on the aforementioned, the court rules to dismiss the lawsuit for having been filed after the lapse of the time-limit with respect to the request for annulment of the decision of transfer and change of job title of the Respondent, and for having been filed against a party lacking standing as for the request for annulment of the decision terminating the service of the Respondent.

* * *