(1,3) Contract "Effects of Contract". "Lease Contract". Law: " Time of Application of Law: Immediate Effect of laws". Judgment:" "Reasons of: flaws of Reasoning: Misapplication of law". Public Order.

 

(1) Provisions of laws apply only to events occurring after the date of their coming into force and do not have retrospective effect on events before that date, unless otherwise is provided for.

 

(2) Effects of contract. Subjected in principle to the provisions of the law under which the contract is concluded. Exception. Subjected to provisions of the new law if it's public order related, so that its provisions apply to the effects of such contracts if they are valid when such law comes into force.

 

(3) Provisions of laws on premises leasing. Being public order related. Effect of. Apply with immediate and direct effect to such contracts even though concluded before their coming into force. Appealed judgment complying with this view. Argument against for misapplication of law is baseless.

 

(4) Suit "putting suit back for pleadings". Court of First Instance 

"Its power to reopen suit for pleadings".

 

Putting the suit back for pleadings. Within the power of the Court of First Instance.  It may ignore request for after reserving suit for judgment. 

 

1-  Provision in Article (3) of Civil Law No. (22), 2004 that "the new law shall apply to all occurrences as of the date of its coming into force unless provided otherwise, and that the effects of transactions shall remain subject to the law in force at the time of their conclusion, unless the provisions of the new law are public order related, in which case they shall apply to the ensuing effects on their coming into force.", means that provisions of laws – as settled in the judgments of this court –apply only to occurrences after the date of their application, not retrospectively to those events which occurred before that unless the law provides otherwise.

 

2-  In principle, a new law has a direct effect subjecting to its force the future effects of private legal statuses, except in contracts which are subjected to the new law under which they are concluded, unless such new law is public order related, in which case it restores its direct force on the effects ensuing from such contracts so long as they remain valid on application of the new law without any contradiction between this principle and the principle of non-retroactivity of laws.

 

3-  If the provisions of the laws on private premises leasing are imperative and public order related, they apply with direct and immediate effect as of the date of their application to all effects ensuing from leasing contracts even though they were concluded before application of such laws. That being so, and as the appealed judgment applied the provisions of Paragraph (5b) of Article (19) of Law No. (4), 2008 on real property leasing – which caught the dispute currently before the Court of First Instance – and decreed eviction of the leased premises based on this provision, it is a correct application of law and argument against it is baseless.

After reviewing the papers and hearing the report, read by the reporting judge, the pleading, and deliberation.

Whereas the appeal has satisfied its formal conditions;

The facts, as stated in the appealed judgment and all the papers, are that two Respondents instituted Suit No. (-) Full Civil Circuit, for rescinding the lease contract dated 1/3/2000 and evicting Appellant from the commercial complex owned by them for breach of the lease terms and making modifications to the leased premises without their permission. They added a claim for rescission to demolish the building and rebuild it. The court dismissed the suit. Respondents filed Appeal No. 642/2007 against this judgment. On 27/2/2008 the court passed judgment cancelling the appealed judgment and decreed eviction of the leased premises. Appellant objected by way of cassation, which was put before this court – in the consultation room – and it fixed a date for hearing.

 

Whereas the appeal is based on two grounds, on the first it's argued against the appealed judgment for misapplication of law, for applying the provisions of Law No. (4), 2008 on real property leasing and concluded by decreeing eviction of the leased premises applying the provisions of Paragraph (5b) of Article (19) of the said law, whereas the two laws No. (2), 1975 and No. (4), 2006 on premises leasing were the applicable law on the point in dispute, which allow claims for rescission of contract and eviction of the premises for demolition and rebuilding only after expiration of the contract term which will end in this case as agreed on 28/2/2010, therefore, judgment is faulty and requires cassation.

 

And, as this argument is not correct, for, the purport of provision of Article (3) of Civil Law No. (22), 2004 that "the new law shall apply to all occurrences as of the date of its coming into force unless provided otherwise, and that the effects of transactions shall remain subject to the law in force at the time of their conclusion, unless the provisions of the new law are public order related, in which case they shall apply to the ensuing effects on their coming into force.", is that provisions of laws – as settled in the judgments of this court –apply only to occurrences after the date of their application, not retrospectively to those events which occurred before that unless the law provides otherwise. And the principle is that a new law has a direct effect subjecting to its force the future effects of private legal statuses, except in contracts which are subjected to the new law under which they are concluded, unless such new law is public order related, in which case it restores its direct force on the effects ensuing from such contracts so long as they remain valid on application of the new law without any contradiction between this principle and the principle of non-retroactivity of laws. And that if the provisions of the laws on private premises leasing are imperative and public order related, they apply with direct and immediate effect as of the date of their application to all effects ensuing from leasing contracts even though they were concluded before application of such laws. That being so, and as the appealed judgment applied the provisions of Paragraph (5b) of Article (19) of Law No. (4), 2008 on real property leasing – which caught the dispute currently before the Court of First Instance – and decreed eviction of the leased premises based on this provision, it is a correct application of law and argument against it is baseless.

 

And whereas Appellant on the second grounds argues against the appealed judgment for breach of the right of defense as it ignored their request for opening the suit for pleadings, a shortcoming that taints it and calls for cassation.

Whereas this argument is not admissible, for, putting the suit back for pleadings is within the absolute power of the Court of First Instance, therefore it is not to blame – after allowing pleadings and reserving suit for judgment – if it ignored a request for more pleading, so the argument is wholly baseless. 

 

For the above, appeal for cassation dismissed.