- Appeal in cassation. Special litigation wherein the task of the court is limited to examining the validity of judgments as to their adherence or non-adherence. To the rule of law on the grounds of the demands or defences submitted thereto. Meaning thereof. The cassation shall be filed against the last ruling issued by the Court of Appeal.

- Example.

Whereas it is prescribed as per the ruling of this court that the cassation is a special litigation, wherein the task of the court is limited to examining the validity of judgments as to their adherence or non-adherence to the rule of law on the grounds of the claims or defences submitted thereto, which indicates that the cassation shall be filed against the last judgment issued therein by the Court of Appeal.

Whereas the cassation filed against the judgment issued on 15/12/2019 in Opposition No. 19 of 2019, and declaring the inadmissibility to proceed with the hearing of the opposition (instituted by ..... in his capacity as the manager of ...) on the grounds that the court of next instance had adjudicated the merits of the appeal with a final ruling based on the aforementioned cassation judgment, and this preceded the hearing of the merits of the opposition, and then the outcome reached by the contested judgment was valid and consistent with the correct rule of law.

Whereas the appellant objects to the reversed judgment, as well as to that issued by a different panel from the court to which it was referred, on the grounds that there is no need to hear or address them, since they are not subject to the present cassation, the first for being cancelled by the nullifying judgment, and the second ruling for not being challenged within the legally prescribed time limit. Based on the foregoing, the cassation shall be dismissed.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and all documents - the Public Prosecution referred the appellant and others (non-appellants) to the criminal trial on the grounds that on 27/7/2018 and a later date in the Ajman Department:

With respect to the fifth accused (the appellant): -

Being a juristic person - its manager (the fourth accused) contributed to helping each of the defendants, from the first to the third, to stay in the country illegally after the expiry of their residence permit without adjusting their situation or removing them from the state or paying the legally prescribed fine, as shown in the documents.

And requested their punishment according to the provisions of Articles 1, 12/1, 21 / 1-3, 34 bis, 36 of Law No. 6 of 1973 concerning the Entry and Residence of foreigners.

In the session dated 11/3/2019, the court of first instance ruled to punish the accused, by imposing on each of the first, second and third accused a fine equal to one thousand and one hundred dirhams for the charge against them, and a fine equal to one thousand and one hundred dirhams on the fourth accused for the first charge, and a fine equal to one thousand and one hundred dirhams for the second charge and one thousand and one hundred dirhams for the third charge, and to punish the fifth accused by fining him one thousand and one hundred dirhams for the charge against him, and imposed upon them to pay the judicial fees.

The Public Prosecution filed an appeal against that judgment under No. 404 of 2019 before the Ajman Criminal Court of Appeal. In the session dated 23/6/2019, the Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in the merits, to modify the appealed judgment by punishing the fifth accused, jointly with the manager of the company, with a fine equal to one hundred and fifty thousand dirhams for the employment of the three defendants and imposed on them to pay the judicial fees of the appeal.

The judgment was not accepted by the Public Prosecution, therefore, it filed against it cassation No. 683 of 2019 (penal).

Whereas, in the session dated 15/10/2019, the Federal Supreme Court ruled to reverse the contested ruling, and to refer the case to the Ajman Federal Court of Appeal for further hearing by a different panel.

Whereas, in the session dated 24/11/2019, the Court of Appeal (court of next instance) ruled by a different panel to accept the appeal in form, and in the merits, to reject it and to modify the adjudged penalty, by sentencing the appellant ........ to a fine equal to one hundred and fifty thousand dirhams in respect of the defendants ....., ....., and ..... for the charge of allowing them to stay illegally in the country and imposed upon it to pay judicial fees due to the court of first instance and the Court of Appeal.

Whereas it is established in the documents that the fourth accused ........ in his capacity as the manager of..... company filed on 15/9/2019 (Opposition No. 19 of 2019). After the court decided to join the files together, it found out that the case file had been sent to the Federal Supreme Court, based on the cassation filed of the Public Prosecutor's Office under No. 683 of 2019, which reversed the judgment and ordered the case to be remanded to the Court of Appeal for further hearing. The said court issued its judgment on 11/24/2019 as stated earlier. In the session dated 15/12/2019, the Court of Appeal ruled the inadmissibility to proceed with the hearing of the opposition, since the Court of Appeal has adjudicated the merits thereof under the judgment issued on 24/11/2019. On 30/12/ 2019, the appellant filed against it the present appeal in cassation.

Whereas the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum of its opinion whereby it requested the dismissal of the cassation and the confiscation of the insurance.

Whereas the appellant objects to the contested judgment stating that it violated the law, and erred in its application and breached the right of defence, on the grounds that the judgment ruled the inadmissibility to proceed with the hearing of the opposition since the merits of the judgment issued on 24/11/2019 (by a different panel) were adjudicated by a final ruling in compliance with the judgment handed down in Cassation No. 683 of 2019, although the said judgment and the appealed judgment issued on 23/6/2019 convicted the appellant pursuant to a bill of indictment that is not consistent with the charges against him and punished him with a penalty that was not mentioned in the referral order, as he is charged with count of failure to renew the residence permit of the first, second and third defendants and to pay the delay penalties, and although he denied the accusation and pleaded that he renewed the residence permits, however, the court convicted him without investigating his meritorious defence and ruled to punish him for a crime that he did not commit, and therefore, the judgment shall be deemed defective, and consequently, it shall be reversed.

Whereas the appellant’s objection to the contested judgment on the grounds of its two reasons is not valid, since it is prescribed as per the ruling of this court that the cassation is a special litigation, wherein the task of the court is limited to examining the validity of judgments as to their adherence or non-adherence to the rule of law on the grounds of the claims or defences submitted thereto, which indicates that the cassation shall be filed against the last judgment issued therein by the Court of Appeal.