Background
Our client, the plaintiff in this matter, was represented throughout the proceedings by Mrs. Awatif Al Khouri of Awatif Mohammad Shoqi Advocates and Legal Consultancy, who managed the case from the Court of First Instance through to the Court of Cassation. Our client had transferred funds to a borrower, and a second person had come in as a guarantor and had agreed to pay the debt if the borrower did not return the amount. The parties signed a written acknowledgement of the debt, stating the amount and when it had to be repaid. When the date passed, no money was paid over, despite repeated demands from our client. Our Client therefore proceeded to sue the borrower and the guarantor for recovery of the amount due plus interest and costs.
Court of First Instance
At the first stage of litigation, the court focused on whether our client had sufficiently proven the existence of the debt and whether the two defendants were legally bound by the written undertaking they had signed. The court observed that where a party relies on an informal document, the presumption is that such a party authored the document, unless the signature is expressly denied. In that case, neither defendant denied having signed the acknowledgement, and no evidence of repayment was ever introduced. The borrower requested that an expert be appointed to examine the financial relationship of the parties, but the court declined, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which to base a decision. On that basis, the court ruled in our client’s favour, holding both the borrower and the guarantor jointly and severally liable for the outstanding debt, along with interest calculated from the date the claim was filed until full payment, as well as associated fees and costs.
Court of Appeal
The Defendants appealed the first instance decision, but the Court of Appeal considered that the arguments presented were not substantially different from those raised and rejected at first instance. The appellate court observed that no new evidence had been tendered to challenge the signed undertaking, and no evidence of repayment had been produced. One of the defendants attempted to rely on a separate acknowledgement suggesting that a third party bore responsibility for the debt, but the court held that this did not relieve the guarantor of his own independent obligation to our client. The Court of Appeal also agreed that appointing a financial expert would serve no useful purpose, given that the underlying documents had never been challenged as forged or inauthentic. Finding no error in the reasoning of the first instance court, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety, upheld the original judgment, and ordered the appellant to bear the costs and fees associated with the appeal.
Court of Cassation
The Defendants appealed to the Court of Cassation. But the Court of Cassation posed a threshold procedural question: was the case even fit for cassation review? Under the relevant procedural law, a cassation appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment is only permitted if the value of the claim, including any interest properly included in that calculation, exceeds a certain statutory minimum. The court applied the proper valuation rules and found that the amount in dispute, including claimed interest, did not reach the required amount. The cassation appeal was rejected as inadmissible , and the judgment of the Court of Appeal was upheld .
Conclusion
This case highlights the importance of strong evidence and following the correct procedure in debt recovery claims. Our client was successful before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal on the basis of clear documentary evidence of the debt and guarantee. The Court of Cassation result also confirmed that not every judgment to the contrary can be challenged endlessly, especially where statutory value thresholds are not met.
