Institute for the Study and Development of Legal Systems




Tieba Company Lawsuit was recorded at the Clerk's Office of the Suez Primary Court on April 2, 1993 under nominal number (T). On April 3, 1993 the Case Manager at the Suez Primary Court received the suit file containing the following:

1- The original notice of action showing the suit's incidents, and enough number of copies to be served to the other litigants.

2- A photocopy of the contract between Tieba Company and Ramses Company dated February 1st 1991.

3- Decree of the Governor of South Sinai No 10 for 1990 designating a piece of land to construct a water plant thereon. The Decree shows that the land designated for the said purpose is adjacent to the dwelling city.

Consequently, the Case Manager ordered to summon the claimant company and other parties to appear before him on the session of April 2, 1993. The issue was handed over the same day (April 2, 1993) to the Process-Server's Office to execute the said order.

On April 7, 1993, Ramses Import Export Company recorded its lawsuit against Tieba Company at the Clerks' Office of Suez Primary Court under nominal number (R).

Next day (April 8, 1993) the file was referred to the Case Manager containing:

1- The original notice of action and copies thereof.

2- A photocopy of the contract concluded between the two companies, February 1st, 1991.

3- An engineering report demonstrating:

a) The nature of the soil upon which was contracted to build

b) The additional foundation works required because of the ground condition

c) The time needed to accomplish the said works.

The Case Manager noted the connection between the two cases. Intending that the determined session dated April 12, 1993 be fruitful on the merits of the dispute, he ordered the process - Server's Office, the same day to execute the summon of Tieba Company, which summon was effectuated April 8, 1993.

At the session of April 12, 1993, the representatives of Tieba, Ramses and Luxor Companies appeared before the Case Manager. The governor of South Sinai did not appear, nor did the wood supplier who was served in Cairo.

The Case Manager communicated by telephone with the Governor of South Sinai in the presence of the representatives of the said companies. He briefed the Governor on the circumstances of the case and pointed out the necessity of the attendance of his representative. The Governor stated that he was not aware of the case, and since he had just learned about it, he requested a postponement to send his representative with documents and information relating to the claims brought against him. The Case Manager fixed a date for the Case Management session, e.g., the session of April 19, 1993.

Subsequently, the Case Manager communicated by telephone with the wood supplier in the presence of the attendant parties. The said supplier asserted that he did not receive the action notice. He also pointed out that he is not an individual merchant but a manager of a partnership limited by shares. He added that he has nothing to do with this action. The Case Manager advised him to appear and state these reservations in the presence of the other parties because this would be more effective in determining his situation, and informed him that the next hearing will be April 19, 1993.

April 19, 1993 the representatives of all parties appeared before the Case Manager:

The representative of Tieba company insisted on pursuing his claims as alleged in his action notice.

The representative of Ramses Company stated that the dwelling units actually established are 1700 units and not only 900 as alleged by Tieba Company and that the delay in construction is attributed to the soil conditions as alleged in its action notice of this company against Tieba Company.

The representative of Luxor Export Import Company requested the dismissal of claims brought against him, asserting that there is no relation between him and Tieba Company. He argued, therefore, that it was not appropriate for said company to answer the claims.

The representative of the wood supplier Ahmed Fares stated that he received the action notice only the day before his appearance.

Accordingly, he initially requested the adjournment of the case to enable him to prepare his defense. Alternatively; he rebutted the action on grounds of his legal incapacity to receive it because Ahmed Fares is a manager of a partnership limited by shares. Therefore, he ought to be sued in this capacity. Finally, he demanded the dismissal of claims by Tieba Company brought against him, because he had nothing to do with them.

The representative of the Governor of South Sinai pointed out that the decree which the claimant company requests to be annulled is an administrative order which the civil courts are not competent to annul. Additionally, he argued that even if the said courts were competent to hear the company's claim, the Suez Primary Court is not the proper venue. Moreover, he claimed that he had relationship to the lawsuit of Tieba Company v. Ramses Company and demanded annulment of an administrative order.

After hearing clarifications from representatives the of litigants, the Case Manager pointed out that the dispute can be separated into two parts:

Part One: Related to the dispute between Tieba Company and Ramses Company as stated in the two lawsuits, each one raised from one company against the other. (Lawsuit T and Lawsuit R).

Part Two, Related to the dispute between Tieba Company and the other defendants sued by it.

Concerning Part One of the dispute, the parties thereof, according to what was stated in the photocopies of the contract submitted by them, admitted that the contract was concluded in Suez City. Consequently, Tieba Company's lawsuit is before the competent court.

Subsequently; the said lawsuit requires the following proofs and documents;

1- The original contract concluded between the two companies, February 1, 1991.

2- The original engineering report submitted by Ramses Company in its lawsuit, which report states that the ground conditions of the site on which was contracted to establish the dwelling city necessitates additional foundation work.

3- The original minutes of inspection and transfer of the property from Tieba Company to Ramses Company at the beginning of the project implementation.

4- The issue requires (additionally) the nomination of an expert to undertake the inspection of the site and carry out the necessary survey to clarify the following:

a) What work was done and what percentage of the entire project;

b) Whether any technical specifications related to sale conditions necessitated the alleged additional foundation work and whether such works were effectuated. In case of the existence of this work, the determination of amount and value shall be required;

c) Whether technical difficulties are attributable to the nature of the site ground or to external causes and to what extent such causes were identifiable upon contract conclusion; and

d) Extent of conformity of the dwelling units already built with the agreed upon specifications. In case of discrepancies, the precise determination and estimation of value thereof shall be required.

The first three original documents were submitted to the Case Manager on the same session. Accordingly, were attached to the file one of the two originals of the contract, the original engineering report and the minutes of the site inspection and transfer. Subsequently, at the same session, and in presence of all parties, the Case Manager nominated an expert to undertake the aforementioned tasks and ordered a complete copy of the file to be delivered to the expert.