(1) Material compensation for damages not covered by blood money, whether current or anticipated, is permissible provided that the elements of damage are established, and the harm is either certain or potential.

(2) Missed Opportunity: The concept of a missed opportunity. Compensation for such loss is permissible under applicable legal principles.

(3) The contested ruling, which compensates the deceased's husband for the loss of his wife and provides compensation to her parents for the missed opportunity to care for them lost due to her demise, is deemed valid. This determination is based on the fact that the objection, asserting the deceased's lack of employment, is rejected. The respondent's assertion, supported by documentary evidence, establishes the deceased's status as described.

(4) The res judicata of a criminal judgment is absolute and extends universally, applicable to all and before civil courts. This is contingent upon determining the act forming the common basis between the two lawsuits, due to the connection of the res judicata with public order. Conversely, the res judicata of a ruling in a civil case is limited to the parties involved therein.

(5) An instance of a deficiency in reasoning is evident when the contested ruling confirmed the appealed decision to complement the blood money amount in accordance with Law No. 1 of 2019 without considering the conclusive criminal ruling that explicitly specified the blood money at one hundred thousand pounds.

Whereas in the facts, as apparent pursuant to the perusal of the contested ruling and accompanying documents, the two plaintiffs, (respondents), initiated lawsuit No. 4724 of 2020 Civil Penal.... against the defendant (appellant). In this suit, they sought the payment of an amount totalling 15,000,000 dirhams as compensation for both material and moral damages, along with interest accruing from the date of the claim until full payment at a rate of 9%. The basis for this claim is the assertion that they are the heirs of the deceased, namely the offspring of the first plaintiff and his late wife, [Name]. The demise occurred as a result of a fire that transpired on 12/2/2018, within a building owned by the defendant. The defendant was criminally convicted with a final and conclusive ruling on the charge of inadvertently causing the deaths of the victims, including [Name]. It is further substantiated that [Name], the deceased, had been an employee in a bank for more than fifteen years and significantly contributed to her husband's family expenses. Additionally, she extended financial support to her aging parents, identified as the second and third respondents, who lack any independent source of income or livelihood. In light of these circumstances, the present lawsuit was instituted with the aforementioned claims.

In a session held on 27/4/2021, the court rendered a judgment obligating the defendant to pay the plaintiffs an amount of two hundred thousand dirhams, with an interest rate of 9% calculated from the date of the finality of the judgment. These amounts were to be distributed among the plaintiffs in accordance with Sharia obligations. The court further mandated the defendant to cover the relevant fees and expenses, along with an additional one thousand dirhams allocated for legal fees.

Subsequently, both parties - the defendant in Appeal No. 964 of 2021 and the plaintiffs in Appeal No. 990 of 2021 - appealed this ruling. In a session held on 27/7/2021, the Court of Appeal ruled to accept both appeals in form and on the merits, specifically: 1- In Appeal No. 964 of 2021 filed by the defendant, the appeal was rejected. 2- In Appeal No. 990 of 2021 filed by the plaintiffs, the appealed ruling was amended. The defendant was obligated to pay the appellant /[Name] the sum of 200,000 dirhams, with legal interest set at 5% from the date of the claim until full payment, provided that the interest does not exceed the principal amount adjudicated. Additionally, the respondent /[Name] was required to pay the appellants [Name] ‌and [Name] an amount of 200,000 dirhams, to be divided equally between them, with a legal interest of 5% from the date of the claim until full payment, ensuring that the interest does not surpass the principal amount awarded. The appealed ruling was confirmed as to the remaining aspects.

The appellant has lodged an appeal against the aforementioned ruling through the present cassation proceedings. Subsequently, upon the submission of the cassation to this court in a Council Chamber, a session was scheduled for its hearing, notice of which was duly communicated to the concerned parties by the case management office. The appellant, in the second ground of cassation, contests the contested ruling. The basis for this objection lies in the perceived error in the application of the law and flaws in inference, specifically, the annulment of the appealed ruling and the awarding of monetary sums to the respondents for the material damages incurred due to the death of their heir/[Name]. The crux of the appellant's objection centres on the assertion that [Name] was solely a housewife and not employed by any bank, thus contending that the contested ruling is inherently flawed and ought to be reversed.

This objection lacks merit, since it is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that it is permissible to claim additional compensation for material damages not encompassed within the ambit of blood money, provided that the requisite elements of said damages are substantiated.

Whereas, in the first ground of objection, the appellant contends that the contested ruling violated the law by awarding the respondents an additional sum of one hundred thousand dirhams as a supplement to the blood money for the late /[Name], despite the documentary evidence confirming that the criminal court had previously awarded the blood money of one hundred thousand dirhams in accordance with Federal Law No. 17 of 1991, as amended by Federal Law No. 9 of 2003. This particular ruling was issued on 6/2/2019 and has attained finality and conclusiveness. Nevertheless, the contested ruling granted the respondents the requested amount without duly considering the res judicata of the aforementioned final and conclusive ruling on this matter. Such oversight is deemed a violation of the law, necessitating the reversal of the contested ruling.

The objection raised as to this aspect holds merits, since it is prescribed, as per the ruling of this court, that a criminal judgment holds the force of res judicata before civil courts, provided it has rendered a necessary decision in a matter pertaining to the occurrence of the act forming the common basis between the criminal and civil suits. This res judicata is intrinsically linked to public order, impacting the community's interests. Consequently, penal judgments are immune from scrutiny concerning matters already adjudicated as necessary, exhibiting an absolute binding force applicable universally. This is in stark contrast to the res judicata of a ruling in a civil case, which is confined to the litigants therein and does not extend beyond their purview.

Given the validity of the merits for adjudication, Article 184 of the Civil Transactions Law shall be applied.