Levels of Litigation under the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure

The principle of access to judicial review is among the fundamental principles of the administration of justice. It affords a litigant or party to proceedings the opportunity to submit a dispute to more than one judge or court for consideration and determination. It allows an unsuccessful litigant to bring the same dispute before a higher court, constituted by a different judicial panel, for reconsideration, whether by affirming the original judgment, quashing it, declaring it void, or varying it.

A litigant initially proceeds before a court hearing the claim for the first time, known as a court of first instance, such as a Court of First Instance. At the second stage, judgments may be appealed before courts exercising appellate jurisdiction, such as the Courts of Appeal.

The Structure of the Levels of Litigation in the Egyptian Civil Judicial System

First: Courts of First Instance — District Courts and Courts of First Instance:

These courts hear a claim for the first time, hear the parties’ submissions, examine documents and evidence, and determine the facts of the case directly.

• District Courts: These courts sit with a single judge and have jurisdiction over claims of lower monetary value, as well as minor contraventions and misdemeanours.
• Courts of First Instance: These courts sit as a panel of three judges and have jurisdiction over higher-value civil and commercial claims, appeals in misdemeanour cases, and felonies.

Second: Courts of Second Instance — Courts of Appeal:

These are the judicial bodies before which judgments delivered by courts of first instance may be challenged by a dissatisfied party. An appeal constitutes a comprehensive rehearing, in which the case is reconsidered in terms of the facts, evidence, and applicable law. The appellate court may affirm or vary the judgment, or set it aside in whole or in part.

Third: The Court of Cassation — The Apex of the Judicial Hierarchy:

The Court of Cassation does not examine the merits of a case or hear witnesses; its role is confined to reviewing the application of the law. Where it identifies an error in the application of the law, it quashes the judgment and remits the case to a differently constituted appellate circuit for determination.

There are, however, circumstances in which the Court of Cassation may determine the case directly without remitting it to the Court of Appeal, namely:

1. A second cassation appeal: Where the Court of Cassation has previously quashed a judgment in the same case, the case has been remitted, a new judgment has been delivered, and that judgment is challenged by a second cassation appeal, the Court of Cassation must, if it decides to quash the judgment again, determine the merits itself, thereby preventing repeated remittals and prolonged litigation.
2. Where the case is ready for determination on the merits: Where cassation is based on a violation of the law, and the facts of the case are established and complete before the Court of Cassation, requiring neither further investigation nor reassessment of the evidence, the Court may determine the merits directly.
3. Matters concerning jurisdiction: Where cassation is based on a breach of the rules governing subject-matter or territorial jurisdiction, the Court of Cassation confines its judgment to determining jurisdiction and identifying the competent court before which the proceedings must be brought, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 269 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.

Monetary Jurisdiction and Its Role in Determining the Competent Court

1- District Courts in Egypt have original jurisdiction over civil and commercial claims whose value does not exceed EGP 200,000.

2- Courts of First Instance have original jurisdiction over all civil and commercial claims exceeding EGP 200,000, namely those exceeding the monetary jurisdiction of the District Courts.

Methods of Challenging Judgments — Ordinary and Extraordinary Remedies

First: Ordinary Remedies — Appeal

An appeal is the means by which judgments delivered by courts of first instance are brought before an appellate court by a party dissatisfied with the judgment.
The appellate court may affirm or vary the judgment, or set it aside in whole or in part.

Second: Extraordinary Remedies — Cassation and Petitions for Reconsideration

Cassation:

A cassation appeal may be brought on the following grounds:

1. The challenged judgment is based on a violation of the law, or an error in its application or interpretation.
2. The judgment is affected by nullity, or the proceedings are affected by a procedural nullity that has influenced the judgment.

Cassation Appeal Procedures — Articles 253 to 256 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, as Last Amended

Article 253:

An appeal shall be brought by a petition lodged with the Registry of the Court of Cassation or with the Registry of the court that delivered the challenged judgment. The petition shall be signed by a lawyer admitted to practise before the Court of Cassation. Where the appeal is brought by the Public Prosecution, the petition shall be signed by a Chief Prosecutor or an officer of higher rank.

In addition to particulars identifying the parties, their capacities, and their respective domiciles, the petition shall identify the challenged judgment and its date, state the grounds on which the appeal is based, and specify the relief sought by the appellant. If the appeal is not brought in this manner, it shall be void, and the court shall declare its nullity of its own motion.

No ground of appeal other than those stated in the petition may be relied upon. Nevertheless, grounds concerning public policy may be raised at any time, and the court shall consider them of its own motion.

Where the appellant raises a ground of cassation relating to a judgment delivered earlier in the same proceedings, the appeal shall be deemed to extend to that earlier judgment unless the appellant has expressly acquiesced in it.

Article 254:

The appellant shall deposit, by way of security, with the Treasury of the court at which the appeal petition is lodged, an amount of two hundred and fifty Egyptian pounds if the challenged judgment was delivered by a Court of Appeal, or one hundred and fifty Egyptian pounds if it was delivered by a Court of First Instance or a District Court.
A single security deposit shall suffice where multiple appellants bring their appeal by a single petition, even if their grounds of appeal differ.

The Registry shall not accept the appeal petition unless it is accompanied by proof of such deposit. A person exempt from payment of court fees shall also be exempt from providing the security.

Article 255:

When lodging the petition, the appellant shall file with the Registry copies equal in number to the respondents, an additional copy for the Registry, and an official instrument authorising the lawyer instructed to conduct the appeal. The appellant shall also file, at the same time, the following:

First: An official copy or the formally served copy of the challenged judgment, together with a copy of the first-instance judgment if the challenged judgment refers to its reasoning; otherwise, the appeal shall be declared inadmissible.

Second: The documents supporting the appeal. Where such documents have been filed in another appeal, it shall suffice for the appellant to submit evidence of that fact. The court may take such measures as it considers appropriate to examine those documents.

The Registry of the court that delivered the challenged judgment or the first-instance judgment, as applicable, shall provide any requesting party, within no more than seven days and without requiring payment of fees at that stage, with the requested copies of judgments, documents, or papers, endorsed with the words “Copy for submission to the

Court of Cassation.” This shall be without prejudice to the Registry’s right subsequently to claim any fees payable in respect of the case or the original documents.
The Court of Cassation may order that the case file relating to the challenged judgment be transmitted to it.

Where the appeal petition has been lodged with the Registry of the court that delivered the judgment, that Registry shall transmit all appeal papers to the Court of Cassation on the day following the lodging of the petition.

Article 256:

The Registry of the Court of Cassation shall enter the appeal in the designated register on the day on which the petition is lodged with or received by it.

No later than the following day, the Registry shall deliver the original petition and its copies to the Bailiffs’ Office for service and subsequent return of the original to the Registry.

The Bailiffs’ Office shall serve the appeal petition within no more than thirty days from the date on which it is delivered to that Office. Failure to comply with this time limit shall not invalidate service of the appeal petition.

Petition for Reconsideration

A petition for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy for correcting serious errors. The Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure specifies circumstances in which parties may petition for reconsideration of judgments rendered with final effect, as follows:

1. Where the opposing party has committed fraud capable of influencing the judgment.
2. Where, after judgment, the documents on which it was based are admitted to have been forged or are judicially declared to be forged.
3. Where the judgment was based on witness testimony subsequently adjudged to be false.
4. Where, after judgment, the petitioner obtains documents decisive to the case that the opposing party had prevented from being produced.
5. Where the judgment grants relief that the parties did not seek, or grants more than they sought.
6. Where the operative provisions of the judgment contradict one another.
7. Where judgment is rendered against a natural or legal person who was not properly represented in the proceedings, except in cases of representation by agreement.
8. Where a person against whom the judgment is binding was neither joined nor intervened in the proceedings, provided that such person proves fraud or gross negligence on the part of the person who represented them.

Time Limits for Petitions for Reconsideration

Article 242 prescribes a time limit of forty days for filing a petition for reconsideration.

In the circumstances specified in the first four paragraphs of the preceding Article, that period shall not begin until the day on which the fraud is discovered, the perpetrator admits the forgery or the forgery is judicially established, judgment is rendered against the false witness, or the withheld document comes to light, as applicable.

In the circumstance specified in paragraph seven, the period shall begin on the day on which the judgment is served on the person who properly represents the judgment debtor.

In the circumstance specified in paragraph seven, the period shall begin on the day on which the fraud, collusion, or gross negligence is discovered.

Filing a petition for reconsideration shall not stay enforcement of the judgment. Nevertheless, the court hearing the petition may order a stay of enforcement upon request where enforcement is likely to cause serious harm that would be difficult to remedy.

When ordering a stay of enforcement, the court may require the provision of security or order such measures as it considers sufficient to safeguard the respondent’s rights.

Fundamental Principles of Litigation under Egyptian Law

1- Equality Before the Egyptian Judiciary

The right to litigate is protected and guaranteed to all. Every citizen has the right of access to their natural judge. The State guarantees that judicial bodies are made accessible to litigants and that cases are determined expeditiously.

Accordingly, all persons enjoy an equal right to legal protection. No distinction may be drawn between individuals in exercising that right, regardless of differences in their status. The jurisdiction of the courts varies according to the value of the claim or the nature of the dispute, rather than the identity of the litigants.

Equality Before the Courts in the Islamic Judicial System:

No judicial system in the world has accorded the principle of equality the same degree of attention as the Islamic judicial system. It has made access to justice a right guaranteed to all and has required judges to observe this principle in every respect, including their attention to the parties, their manner of addressing them, and the parties’ admission to their presence.

2- The Principle of Free Administration of Justice in Egypt

Judges in Egypt do not receive remuneration from litigants for adjudicating their disputes; rather, their salaries are paid from the State Treasury.

The Treasury collects fees from litigants in connection with their recourse to the courts. The claimant pays those fees initially. If the claimant succeeds, costs are awarded against the opposing party, enabling the claimant to recover them. If the claimant loses the case, the claimant bears the fees.

Some legal scholars have advocated fully free access to justice so that individuals may obtain legal protection without financial burdens becoming an obstacle. The purpose of requiring claimants to pay fees is to reduce vexatious litigation.

3- The Meaning of the Two-Tier Litigation Principle

Two-tier litigation, or the right of appeal, means that a dispute is initially brought before a court of first instance and, after determination, may be brought again before a higher court—a court of second instance—for reconsideration and determination.

The first court is known as the court of first instance, and the second as the court of second instance or appellate court.

This differs from the principle of single-tier litigation, under which a dispute cannot be brought again after it has been determined and is heard by only one court. Each system has advantages that correspond to disadvantages in the other.

The existence of successive levels of litigation promotes the proper administration of justice by allowing judgments to be reviewed and errors corrected, whether those errors concern the application of the law or the assessment of facts.

It also strengthens confidence in the judiciary, as each judicial level is subject to review by a higher judicial body, thereby supporting judicial oversight and transparency.

Further, it safeguards legal rights by allowing judgments to be challenged before higher courts and promotes consistency in judicial interpretation through judgments of the highest court establishing binding principles for lower courts to follow. It also permits the submission of new evidence at certain stages of litigation, such as on appeal.