- The litigation procedures and issuance of judgments are related to the public order. Meaning thereof. The Supreme Court. may raise it sua sponte, even if it was not raised by any of the opponents.

- Judgments issued in absentia may not be subject to cassation except after filing an opposition thereto or notifying the accused thereof and the expiry of the time limit prescribed for filing the opposition.

- The contested judgment was issued in absentia and the documents do not contain any indication as to the appellant's notification thereof. Appeal in cassation. Its effect. Inadmissible.

Whereas it is prescribed as per the ruling of this court that the litigation procedures and issuance of judgments are related the public order that may be raised by the court sua sponte, even if it was not raised by any of the litigants. It is also prescribed that judgments issued in absentia may not be subject to cassation except after filing an opposition thereto or notifying the accused thereof and the expiry of the time limit prescribed for filing the opposition. Whereas the appealed judgment was issued in absentia against the appellant, and the case documents do not contain an indication as to his notification thereof. In addition, the contested judgment was also issued in absentia against him, and then the appealed and contested judgments have not become final against him, and therefore, the present cassation shall not be admissible.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and all documents - the Public Prosecution referred the respondent and others to the criminal trial for having on 9/12/ 2018 and on a later date in the Ajman Department: -

Helped the first and second accused, being the sponsor thereof, to stay in the country illegally after the expiry of their residency without renewing it or leaving the country within the prescribed time limit or paying the fine, as indicated in the investigations.

The Public Prosecution requested his punishment according to the provisions of Articles 1, 12/1, 21/1, 3, and 36 of Law No. 6 of 1973 concerning the Entry and Residence of Foreigners.

In the session dated 29/8/2019, the court of first instance ruled in absentia to impose on the respondent a fie equal to one thousand and one hundred dirhams for the charge against him. The Public Prosecution filed an appeal against that judgment under No. 1050/2019. In the session dated 8/12/2019, the Ajman Federal Court of Appeal ruled to modify the appealed judgment by fining the respondent one hundred thousand dirhams for the charge against him. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal in cassation against it.

The Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of its opinion whereby it requested the court to rule the inadmissibility of the cassation and the confiscation of the insurance.