Author: Riyadh Al-Balushi

An employee of German nationality sued his employer for unlawful dismissal and claimed compensation. The Primary Court in Muscat sided with the employee and ordered the employer to pay the employee compensation, but this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Muscat on the grounds that the Primary Court in Muscat had no jurisdiction to rule on this matter due to the existence of an arbitration clause between the employee and the employer. The Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause is invalid because it constituted a waiver of workers' rights that are guaranteed by the Labour Law and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in Muscat to reconsider its merits.

An Omani employee was terminated from his job for insulting a manager in the presence of other employees. He sued his employer for unfair dismissal and demanded compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of employment was valid, emphasising that any form of assault affecting a person’s dignity is deemed grievous under article 40(8) of the Labour Law of 2003.

An Omani employee working on a 2-week on 2-week off rotational system sued his employer for refusing to compensate him for working during national holidays. The Supreme Court ruled that he was not entitled to compensation on the grounds that the working system of the employer, in terms of working hours and working days, was more favourable overall than the system prescribed by the Labour Law, and therefore, the failure to compensate the worker for the national day holidays is not deemed a valuation.

A sale agreement for the purchase of a property stipulated that the agreement automatically terminates in the case of the failure to deliver the property within 160 days from the date of the delivery of the default notification from the buyer. The seller failed to deliver the property on time, so the buyer sued both the seller and the contractor for breach of contract and demanded specific performance. The Primary Court in Muscat held that specific performance was not possible and ruled that the contract is rescinded, while the Court of Appeal in Muscat ruled specific performance against the seller and ordered him to deliver the property. The seller contested the decision at the Supreme Court on the grounds that specific performance was not possible due to a force majeure event, i.e. the failure of government entities to provide electricity and water connections, but the Supreme Court rejected this argument on the grounds that an experienced developer such as the one in this case should have known to plan around government procedures. However, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Court of Appeal did not consider the fact that the buyer had not paid up the full price of the property when ordering specific performance, and accordingly referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.