Latest news with #CivilandCommercialExecutionLaw
Gulf Insider
2 days ago
- Business
- Gulf Insider
Appeals Court Allows BD20,000 Gulf Verdict To Take Effect
The Supreme Civil Appeals Court has ruled that a BD20,000 judgment issued by a court in a Gulf country in a commercial dispute is enforceable in Bahrain. The decision came in response to a case filed by a Gulf-based businessman against a local contracting company over unpaid commercial transactions. The court overturned an earlier lower court ruling that had rejected the enforcement request on the grounds that the foreign judgment was not final. However, appeals judges found the ruling to be conclusive and binding, as the appeal window had passed. Lawyer Abrar Bukheet, representing the claimant, said her client had initially filed the case in his home country after a business dispute with the Bahraini company's owner. The foreign court ordered the defendant to pay nearly BD20,000 in penalties and outstanding dues. A retrial request was denied, prompting the claimant to seek enforcement through Bahrain's courts. The appeals court cited Bahrain's Civil and Commercial Execution Law, which allows enforcement of foreign judgments under reciprocal terms— provided certain conditions are met. These include confirming that Bahraini courts had no jurisdiction over the case, that due process was followed, the ruling was final, and it did not conflict with any previous Bahraini judgment. The court confirmed that the Gulf ruling met all requirements, including carrying the executory formula and the authority of res judicata. It accepted the appeal, overturned the lower court's decision, and approved enforcement of the foreign judgment within the Kingdom.
Daily Tribune
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Tribune
More cases resolved than filed last year
More lawsuits were settled in Bahrain last year than were filed, according to Justice Minister, His Excellency Nawaf Al Maawda, with over 59,000 cases brought to a close in 2024 as the courts pressed on with their caseload. The figures came in response to a written question from MP Jalal Kadhem, who sought a breakdown of court activity since the beginning of the current legislative term. He asked for separate counts of civil, criminal and Sharia cases involving Bahrainis and expatriates, along with data on final rulings, pending cases, enforcement and interim orders such as travel bans or asset freezes. In his written reply, the minister said 57,311 new cases had been filed during 2024 across all courts. By the end of the year, 59,280 had been concluded, roughly 103 per cent of those filed, leaving just over 10,200 cases still before the courts. Pattern A similar pattern was recorded the year before. In 2023, 57,615 cases were registered and 60,400 settled. The number of ongoing cases at the close of that year stood at 11,000. The minister also provided figures for cases in which temporary measures had been requested. Between the start of the term and the date of reply, there were 3,922 such lawsuits. Of these, 3,851 had concluded, 63 remained in progress and eight had been put on hold. Final ruling As for enforcement, Al Maawda noted that carrying out a final ruling depends on a party stepping forward to request action, either through a court decision or an enforceable deed. The process then follows the path laid out in Bahrain's Civil and Commercial Execution Law issued by Decree-Law No. 22 of 2021. He added that the ministry continues to support the work of the Supreme Judicial Council in improving access to justice and is making use of electronic tools to speed up case handling and reduce delays.
Gulf Insider
06-04-2025
- Politics
- Gulf Insider
Bahrain: Government Rejects Proposal To Give Courts Power Over Deportation And Travel Bans
A proposal to hand over travel ban and deportation decisions to the judiciary has hit a roadblock, with the government warning it poses a direct threat to national security. The draft law, introduced by Parliament, seeks to amend Article 40 of the Civil and Commercial Execution Law. It proposes giving a panel of three judges the authority to rule in cases where both a deportation order and a travel ban are in place against a foreign national. The decision would be subject to appeal within seven days before the High Civil Court. However, the government has strongly opposed the move, arguing that it undermines the state's sovereign right to remove individuals who pose a risk to society. 'The proposed amendment erodes the state's authority to remove individuals who pose a risk to society,' it said. 'Deportation is a sovereign act, not something to be weighed against private debt claims.' According to the government, deportation is a necessary measure to uphold public order, safety, and morals. Delaying such action by requiring judicial review would obstruct and weaken the executive's ability to respond swiftly to threats. Article 40 While Article 40 currently allows courts to impose travel bans to prevent foreign debtors from fleeing, it does not override or delay deportation rulings or administrative removal decisions. The government said the proposed amendment effectively reverses this principle, creating a mechanism that prioritises civil claims over security concerns. 'This interferes with and weakens the state's capacity to respond quickly to internal threats,' it stated. Further, the government warned that foreign nationals might misuse the proposed system by manufacturing or exaggerating debt disputes in order to trigger a travel ban and block deportation. 'There is nothing in the proposed text to prevent misuse,' the memorandum noted. It also pointed out that deportation may be imposed as an additional sentence for certain criminal offences. Once such a ruling becomes final, it must be enforced without delay. 'A final criminal ruling cannot be re-examined,' the government stated. 'No other body may delay or undo its effects once it takes force.' Overlaps Concerns were also raised about potential overlaps with the responsibilities of the Public Prosecution and criminal enforcement judges. The government said this could create confusion and inefficiencies within the legal system. It took issue with the draft's wording that the judicial panel would 'consider implementing either' a deportation order or a travel ban, arguing that this could be interpreted to mean one measure must be discarded outright. This would contradict the current legal framework, which recognises that travel bans do not affect the enforcement of deportation orders. The proposal was also said to clash with the opening paragraph of Article 40, which explicitly states that travel bans have no bearing on deportation. The government warned that similar wording exists in other laws, such as the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, and the proposed changes would disrupt the consistency of the legal framework. 'The two cannot sit side by side without causing confusion,' it said. 'The draft introduces a shift in direction without fitting it into the legal framework as a whole.' Withdraw the draft law In conclusion, the government urged Parliament to withdraw the draft law. It maintained that the current legal provisions strike the right balance between civil rights and public interest, and that the proposed changes would create legal uncertainty and weaken the enforcement of final court rulings.
