Cassation No

(1) It is imperative that the ruling incorporates elements that provide assurance to the reader that the trial court thoroughly scrutinised the evidence, documents, and meritorious defenses presented in the case. This comprehensive examination is crucial for arriving at an accurate understanding of the case's reality and drawing inferences that lead to the correct result. Any deviation from this standard results in deficiencies in reasoning.

(2) The appellant upheld its entitlement to sell the ship under litigation as a means to satisfy a maritime debt with preferential status, conclusively proven and prioritised above the respondent's debt. This entitlement is derived from both a bill of lading and a final judgment affirming the appellant's right to a specific sum of money, with the provisional seizure of the ship's price duly established. ‌Meritorious defence. The contested ruling failed to address this meritorious defence and neglected to assess its implications, including whether it qualifies as a maritime debt and if the creditor holds a privilege over other creditors. Instead, the ruling ordered the return of the seized amount on the grounds that the debt is contingent, rendering it deficient in reasoning.

1- It is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that when adjudicating a dispute between two parties, the trial court shall ground its ruling in elements derived from documented facts. The ruling shall inherently convey assurance to the reader that the court diligently scrutinised the evidence and documents presented to it, leading to the conclusion that established facts in the case. This assurance is achieved when the ruling's inference aligns with the result upon which it is based. Failure to examine the significance of documents and evidence in the case or neglecting to address a meritorious defence articulated by the opposing party renders the ruling susceptible to deficiencies in reasoning, necessitating its reversal.

2- In light of the circumstances, the contested ruling directed the return of the seized amount associated with Case No. 111 of 2014, Khor Fakkan Commercial Plenary, asserting that the debt is contingent and lacks the requisites for a writ of execution. However, the ruling failed to engage with the appellant's defence raised in objection, neglecting to thoroughly investigate and address it. The appellant substantiated its defence with supporting documents, notably the rulings issued in lawsuits Nos. 111 of 2014 and 88 of 2017, which verified the asserted debt and established the provisional seizure on the sale of the relevant ship. Crucially, the ruling did not assess the significance of these rulings to determine whether the debt qualifies as maritime. It also overlooked the preferential right of the creditor over other claimants and failed to scrutinise its impact on the extent of the appellant's entitlement to the seized amounts and the recovery of the adjudicated debt through the outlined procedures. This inherent flaw renders the ruling deficient. As a result, it is imperative to reverse the ruling.

Whereas in the facts - as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and the remaining documents - the respondent [Name] made a request to the execution judge on 7/1/2019 to facilitate the public auction of the ship [Name], ‌owned by the company [Name]. Subsequently, the Execution Court initiated the necessary procedures, and during a session on 18/6/2020, the court of first instance adjudicated that the ship be sold to the winning bidder for a total of 40,118,000 dirhams. The court mandated the delivery of the ship and the transfer of ownership to the winning company, with the sale proceeds to be deposited into the court treasury. On 27/8/2020, the Execution judge issued a decision regarding the final distribution list in accordance with the order of privilege. Dissatisfied with this decision, the respondent filed an appeal in Appeal No. 84 of 2020, seeking the annulment of the decision and the release of the seized amount from the sold ship, which was held for the benefit of the appellant company [Name]. The Court of Appeal, in a ruling dated 8/4/2021, annulled the appealed decision and ordered the return of the seized amount in Case No. 111 of 2014 - Commercial, Plenary - amounting to 32,614,897.50 dirhams. This amount had been deposited in the court treasury for execution and its legal distribution. In response to this ruling, the appellant filed an appeal in the present cassation. Following the submission of the cassation to this court in a Council Chamber, it deemed the cassation valid for consideration and scheduled a session for its hearing.

Whereas, the appellant has lodged objections against the contested ruling, citing violation of the law, error in its application, and deficiencies in reasoning. The crux of the appellant's contention is focused on its right to sell the ship to satisfy the asserted price, positing it as a maritime debt originating from the bill of lading and the ruling issued in Cases No. 111 of 2014 and No. 88 of 2017. This ruling established the appellant's entitlement to the amount of 76,841,945.29 dirhams, with a provisional seizure on the sale price of the ship [Name], within the confines of the previously adjudicated debt amount. The appellant asserts that this ruling attained finality, establishing an irrefutable connection between the debt and the ship itself. Consequently, it contends that this debt qualifies as a privileged claim, enjoying precedence over the respondent's debt. However, the contested ruling categorised this debt as contingent, opining that the provisional seizure does not suffice as a writ of execution to substantiate the debt. This characterisation is perceived by the appellant as a fundamental flaw, warranting the reversal of the ruling.

The objection raised by the appellant holds merits, since it is prescribed - as per the ruling of this court, that when adjudicating a dispute between two parties, the trial court shall ground its ruling in elements derived from documented facts.

The ruling shall inherently convey assurance to the reader that the court diligently scrutinised the evidence and documents presented to it, leading to the conclusion that established facts in the case.

Failure to examine the significance of documents and evidence in the case or neglecting to address a meritorious defence articulated by the opposing party renders the ruling susceptible to deficiencies in reasoning, necessitating its reversal.

In light of the circumstances, the contested ruling directed the return of the seized amount associated with Case No. 111 of 2014, Khor Fakkan Commercial Plenary, asserting that the debt is contingent and lacks the requisites for a writ of execution. However, the ruling failed to engage with the appellant's defence raised in objection, neglecting to thoroughly investigate and address it. The appellant substantiated its defence with supporting documents, notably the rulings issued in lawsuits Nos. 111 of 2014 and 88 of 2017, which verified the asserted debt and established the provisional seizure on the sale of the relevant ship. Crucially, the ruling did not assess the significance of these rulings to determine whether the debt qualifies as maritime. It also overlooked the preferential right of the creditor over other claimants and failed to scrutinise its impact on the extent of the appellant's entitlement to the seized amounts and the recovery of the adjudicated debt through the outlined procedures. This inherent flaw renders the ruling deficient. As a result, it is imperative to reverse the ruling, and the case shall be remanded for further consideration.