Category: Intel

The Supreme Court held that a foreign court judgment from a country with whom Oman has a bilateral agreement for the recognition and enforcement of court judgment must not be enforced if the Omani enforcement court fails to examine the original foreign judgment and verify that it meets the legal formalities before making its order to enforce it.

The Supreme Court ruled that a promise to lease constitutes a binding contract under article 72 of the Civil Transactions Law. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the landlord is entitled to compensation for the losses incurred and the profits lost from a potential tenant who breached his promise to lease the property even though no contract was signed.

The Supreme Court ruled that an enforcement judge cannot grant payment instalments for a final judgment debt without the creditor's consent, if this is not explicitly stated in the judgment to be enforced.

The Supreme Court ruled that a vehicle accident occurring inside the private courtyard of a house does not constitute a traffic accident on a "road" as defined by the Traffic Law. Consequently, the insurer is not liable for compensation as the location is not open to public traffic.

The Supreme Court confirmed that it is not permitted to file a grievance against an arbitral award enforcement order before an enforcement judge, pursuant to article 58 of the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Penal Law only applies to crimes committed within the state's sovereign territory, which includes its territorial waters but excludes the exclusive economic zone. Under international maritime conventions, foreign vessels enjoy freedom of navigation within the exclusive economic zone, meaning their presence there does not constitute illegal entry into Omani territory.

The Supreme Court ruled that funds transferred from an Omani branch of an international law firm to its sister branch are not fully considered as deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating the tax liability of the Omani branch.

The Supreme Court held that a divorce pronounced through modern technological means, such as the WhatsApp application, is legally valid and binding. This falls under the category of divorce by writing, in accordance with article 81 of the Personal Status Law. The court emphasised that explicit written terms of divorce are conclusive, regardless of the sender's claim that they did not intend to actually divorce.

The Supreme Court ruled that the value of valuable cargo must be explicitly declared in the bill of lading to hold a carrier fully liable for its loss. A customs declaration does not substitute this requirement, as the carrier must be notified via the bill of lading to charge the appropriate special carriage fees. Without such declaration, the cargo is treated as ordinary goods, and compensation is limited to weight-based calculations under the Commercial Law.