Author: Riyadh Al-Balushi

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.

The Public Prosecution sued an employer as a criminal action for failing to compensate employees on a 2-week on 2-week off rotation work system for working on official holidays and rest days. The court held that criminal convictions require a high standard for establishing an offence, and depriving employees of national holidays and rest days can be justified in the overall package offered through the 2-week on 2-week off rotational system if it is more advantageous to employees.

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 The Primary Court in Muscat held that specific performance was not possible and ruled that the contract is rescinded, while the Court of Appeal in Muscat ruled specific performance against the seller and ordered him to deliver the property.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.