Foreign verdicts must be weighed against domestic standards: IHC

ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court has dismissed a petition seeking enforcement of a Dubai court decree, stressing that foreign judgments must be balanced against domestic law principles, particularly when they rely on criminal findings.

The ruling came in a case filed by Pakistani businessmen Latif Hakeem and another, represented by counsel Kashif Ali Malik, against execution of a money decree obtained by a technology firm from the Dubai Court of First Instance in October 2021. The decree was upheld by the Dubai Court of Appeal in June 2022 and confirmed by the Dubai Court of Cassation in October 2022.

The High Court set aside a July 2025 order by a local executing court that had permitted enforcement of the Dubai decree, and dismissed the execution petition filed under Section 44‑A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In his order, Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas held that civil liability cannot be determined solely on the basis of criminal findings, as this would deprive litigants of independent adjudication required by due process.

He observed that Pakistani courts must independently assess whether foreign judgments satisfy local standards concerning jurisdiction, natural justice, fraud, public policy and compliance with domestic law. While Section 44‑A allows enforcement of decrees from reciprocating territories such as the UAE, it remains subject to exceptions under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code; any such exception renders the foreign judgment inconclusive.

Civil vs criminal proceedings

The pivotal issue was that Dubai courts had relied on criminal‑proceeding findings to determine the appellants’ civil liability, a practice inconsistent with settled Pakistani jurisprudence. Civil and criminal actions operate separately—criminal convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas civil liability is based on a preponderance of probabilities.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Karachi Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hanif, the court reiterated that criminal findings do not bind civil courts, a principle enshrined in Article 189 of the Constitution and binding on all Pakistani courts, including those enforcing foreign decrees.

Samsung Gulf Electronics FZE’s counsel argued that the Dubai court also considered an expert report, but the court rejected this, stating that “the presence of an expert report does not remove the legal defect arising from reliance on the criminal judgment.”

The judgment emphasized that reliance on criminal court findings for civil rights must be examined under Pakistani legal principles. The court found that the foreign decree attracted exceptions under Section 13(c) and (f) of the CPC—situations where a judgment refuses to recognise Pakistani law or sustains a claim founded on breach of that law—and invoked Article 10‑A, guaranteeing a fair trial and due process.

Because the decree met two independent Section 13 exceptions, the court deemed it unnecessary to address other objections concerning arbitration, forum shopping and corporate liability. The exceptions are not cumulative; a single one is sufficient to render a foreign judgment inconclusive.

Case background

The dispute stems from a commercial relationship between Samsung Gulf Electronics FZE and its former distributors, Greentalk FZE and Mobile Sales & Distribution (MS&D). Samsung granted open‑account credit and incentive programmes, but by May 2020 was said to owe about $26.6 million in unreimbursed amounts. Samsung countersued, alleging the distributors owed roughly $21 million. Distribution agreements dated 1 January 2020 contained arbitration clauses under DIFC‑LCIA Rules, yet Samsung pursued parallel litigation in Dubai, Islamabad and Lahore. The arbitral award later restrained Samsung from continuing those proceedings, but the company secured a money decree from the Dubai courts and sought its enforcement in Pakistan.

Published in Dawn, 24 July 2026

Source link