Tag: Case and Fatwa Summary

The Supreme Court held that a partner in a limited liability company is not personally liable for the company's debts beyond their share in its capital, even where they signed cheques on the company's behalf. It also confirmed that an objection of lack of standing may be raised for the first time at any stage of litigation, including before the Supreme Court, under article 116 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law.

The Supreme Court held that a contractual clause assigning jurisdiction to a foreign court cannot override Omani courts' jurisdiction when the contract was created and performed in Oman, as procedural jurisdiction rules are matters of public order under article 30 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law.

The Supreme Court ruled that the sale of a commercial register is not legally binding unless it is registered in the Commercial Register within one month of the sale, as required by article 8 of the Commercial Register Law. A preliminary, unregistered agreement does not constitute a valid sale.

The Supreme Court held that an employee improperly dismissed during the probation period is only entitled to compensation for the pay of the legally required notice period (i.e. seven days) and does not have the right to have his employment reinstated.

The Supreme Court refused to admit evidence because it was not submitted in the Arabic language.

The Supreme Court held that a seller's deliberate silence regarding pre-existing debts attached to a commercial registration constitutes deception under article 103 of the Civil Transactions Law. Consequently, the court ruled that such deception renders the contract voidable, granting the buyer the right to terminate the sale and restore the pre-contractual position.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the State Audit Institute (SAI) has a duty to release the confidential emails of a third-party held in its possession to support the defence of the government against the claims made by that third-party in an arbitration case.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the contractor had no rights under a contract it signed with the government due to the failure to comply with the requirements of Royal Decree 48/76 regarding the Signing of Foreign and Domestic Financial Transactions. The MJLA noted in its fatwa that the contractor can take legal action against individuals in their personal capacity whose actions resulted in the contractor suffering harm.

The Supreme Court held that an employee of a law firm who receives funds from clients to perform legal tasks acts as an agent for those clients. Consequently, misappropriating these funds constitutes the crime of breach of trust under article 360 of the Penal Law, regardless of whether the employee received the funds in a personal capacity or on behalf of the firm.

The Supreme Court held that an employer is bound by the conduct of its unauthorised employees when they appear to third parties as representatives of the employer, even if they are not specifically authorised to carry out the acts in question.