- Announcement through publication in newspapers. Exceptional way. Reason of that?

- Announcement by publication. The litigant shall not resort to this method unless he uses all necessary means to investigate the place of residence of his litigant to announce the same.

- Litigation. Is not valid between both parties if the nullification of the announcement of the statement of claim is proved. Result. Invalidity of the announcement until issuance of the first instance judgment. Effect of the same. Removal of litigation as effect of the judicial demand and shall not be rectified by any subsequent procedure in the lawsuit. Ruling nullification before the Court of Appeal and the latter deciding on the nullification of the appealed judgment without addressing the settlement of the subject thereof. Reason of that? To not be deprived of the nullification in his favour. The grounds of the same? Clause 3 of Article 6 of the Regulation of Federal Law no. 11 of 1992 on Civil Procedure Law.

- Example of defective causation for ruling to compel both Appellants in cassation to pay an amount as the nullification of the announcement was proved as one of the Appellants is a foreigner and the publication was made in Arabic newspapers and not foreign newspapers.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and the documents - the Plaintiff - Respondent - filed lawsuit no. 327 of 2014 Commercial Plenary Ajman, requesting to compel the Defendants - Appellants in cassation - to jointly pay the amount of AED 849,632.32. In explanation of the lawsuit, he stated that he granted credit facilities to the First Defendant - First Appellant in cassation - to guarantee and sponsor the Second Defendant - Second Appellant in cassation - and it failed to perform, then the claim amount became due and they refused to pay despite the notification, thus the lawsuit was filed. After deliberation, the Court of First Instance ruled to appoint an expert in the lawsuit. After the expert accomplished the task assigned to him, and the Plaintiff added the Court’s request for the validity of sequestration no. 289 of 2014, Ajman Federal First Instance Court ruled, on 20/10/2014 to compel both Defendants, in solidarity between them, to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of AED 860,232.32 and to reject all other requests. The Defendants appealed it in cassation under no. 760 of 2017. After its deliberation, Ajman Federal Court of Appeal ruled, on March 27, 2018 forfeiture of the right to appeal, and the Appellants appealed it in cassation under no. 499 of 2018. On 30/4/2019, the Federal Supreme Court ruled to reverse the contested judgment with referral. The Court of the next instance ruled, on 28/10/2019, to confirm the appealed judgment. The Appellants did not agree upon this ruling and appealed it under the current appeal in cassation. After the expert accomplished the task assigned to him, and the Plaintiff added the Court’s request for the validity of sequestration no. 289 of 2014, Ajman Federal First Instance Court ruled, on 20/10/2014 to compel both Defendants, in solidarity between them, to pay to the Plaintiff an amount of AED 860,232.32 and to reject all other requests. The Defendants appealed it in cassation under no. 760 of 2017. After its deliberation, Ajman Federal Court of Appeal ruled, on March 27, 2018 forfeiture of the right to appeal, and the Appellants appealed it in cassation under no. 499 of 2018. On 30/4/2019, the Federal Supreme Court ruled to reverse the contested judgment with referral. The Court of the next instance ruled, on 28/10/2019, to confirm the appealed judgment.

The Appellants did not agree upon this ruling and appealed it under the current appeal in cassation. Whereas the appeal in cassation was presented in a Council Chamber, the Court found that it is worthy of consideration in a hearing and it was considered as stated in the minutes of the hearings and the hearing of today was specified for the pronunciation of the judgment.

Whereas the appeal was based on four grounds, whereby the Appellants objects to the contested judgment in the third ground, for having violated the Law, as the Second Appellant holds the Indian nationality and does not know the Arabic language, and that by examining his announcement as published, it is found that it was published in Al-Khaleej newspaper, issue no. ............. under a Court decision, which violated the Regulation of the Law no. 11 on Civil Procedure Law, then it shall be reversed.

Whereas the objection is valid, as it is prescribed, in the jurisdiction of this Court, that announcement by way of publication in newspapers is an exceptional way intended to confront certain circumstances under which any attempt to announce by other methods becomes useless, so the litigant party shall not take this way unless he has exhausted all the necessary means to find the place of residence of his opponent in order to announce him.

This requires that upon verification of the nullification before the Court of Appeal, the litigation depends on the determination of nullification of the appealed judgment without settling the subject of litigation so as not to deprive the validity of the nullification in his favour - due to the invalidity of announcement by newspaper - from considering the lawsuit on two levels as it is one of the basic principles of the judicial system that the Court shall not violate. Clause 3 of Article 6 of the Regulation of Federal Law no. 11 of 1992 on Civil Procedure Law, stated in Chapter 1, Title 1 (Announcement and its Procedures), that: If it was not possible to announce to the person to be notified according to Clause “a” of this Article, the matter shall be submitted to the case management office, the competent judge or the Chief Judge, as the case may be, to investigate from at least one side the concerned entities then announce by publication in a widely spread newspaper issued in Arabic and in another newspaper issued in a foreign language if necessary, in case the person to be notified is a foreigner.

Thus, whereas the contested judgment rejected the plea of nullification of the announcement in the first statement of claim, it is proven in the documents that the lawsuit announcements were addressed to the Appellant in cassation at the address contained in the statement of claim. The process server moved to this address and found that place has a sign in the name of the First Appellant in cassation and that it is closed since long time ago. Subsequently, the Court investigated the address of both Appellants in cassation through the Economic Department and the Criminal Information Systems, which stated their address, and then completed their announcement through publication. Whereas these procedures are valid under the Law and it is proved in the documents that the Second Appellant in cassation is a foreigner of the Indian nationality and his official language is not Arabic, which he claimed he has no knowledge of, and he was not notified through publication according to Clause 3 of Article 6 stated above, as the documents do not state that the publication was made in a foreign newspaper, as long as the litigant to be announced is a foreigner and the procedures to be followed upon ignorance of the addressee were not followed as per the decree, then the announcement of the statement of claim shall be nullified as it was not valid until issuance of the first instance judgment, as it is the basis of litigation and all the procedures are based thereon. Whereas the contested judgment did not adhere to the same and ruled in the merits then its ruling is not based on a litigation under the Law and all effects entailed therefrom shall be removed for erring in the application of the Law, then it shall be reversed with referral to the Court of First Instance, so that the litigant is not subject to litigation according to the basic principles of the litigation that shall not be violated.