Discussion: The Court of Cassation and the Appellant’s Challenge Against a Final Judgment Twice Within the Legal Timeframe

The authority of judicial rulings that have acquired res judicata status is well established, as such rulings prevail over public order and cannot be revisited once they have been conclusively determined. This principle is widely known and undisputed. However, a unique case was presented before the Court of Cassation, potentially the first of its kind, with the following circumstances:

1. A judgment was issued by the Court of Appeal obligating a party to pay a sum of money. The subject of the dispute is not our focus here; rather, our concern is that this was a final judgment subject to cassation (appeal) before the Court of Cassation.
2. The judgment debtor (appellant) challenged this ruling by filing a cassation appeal before the Court of Cassation, which ruled to accept the appeal in form but reject it on the merits.
3. The judgment debtor (appellant) then filed another cassation appeal against the same ruling within the legally permitted timeframe for challenging final judgments. The Court of Cassation ruled in this second appeal as follows:
   “The appeal is dismissed due to the termination of the dispute, and the appellants are ordered to pay the costs and an attorney’s fee of 2,000 dirhams to the first and second respondents, along with the forfeiture of the security deposit.”

The Court of Cassation justified its ruling as follows:

1. The Effect of a Prior Cassation Ruling

If the judgment debtor (appellant) challenges a ruling within the legally specified period and a decision is issued on one of the appeals, regardless of its outcome, then the subsequent appeal must be dismissed due to the termination of the dispute. The Court of Cassation cannot examine the second appeal under any pretext.

2. Legal Framework for Multiple Cassation Appeals

Although the law does not explicitly prohibit an appellant from filing two cassation appeals against the same judgment within the permitted timeframe, this is conditional on the Court of Cassation not having already ruled on the first appeal.

3. The Scope of a Cassation Appeal

A cassation appeal does not transfer the entire case to the Court of Cassation, unlike an appeal before the Court of Appeal. Instead, cassation is only permitted for specific legal grounds, which relate to violations of the law, whether in substance or procedure. The Court of Cassation only examines the legal arguments explicitly raised by the appellant in the appeal petition.

4. The Nature of a Cassation Appeal

The Court of Cassation does not review the underlying dispute between the parties but rather scrutinizes the final judgment itself to determine whether it aligns with legal principles. As a result, all cassation appeals filed by the same appellant against the same ruling should be decided together.

5. The Finality of a Cassation Decision

Once the Court of Cassation decides on one cassation appeal—either by overturning the ruling or rejecting the appeal—the dispute over the validity of the challenged judgment is resolved. The appellant is then barred from reintroducing the same issue in another cassation appeal, even if it is based on different legal grounds. Any additional appeals become moot and must be considered terminated.

What Does “Termination of the Dispute” Mean?

Before analyzing the implications of the Court of Cassation’s ruling, it is essential to understand what “termination of the dispute” means under prevailing cassation jurisprudence and legal provisions. The following key points provide insight:

1. Legal Provisions on the Termination of a Dispute
   Federal Law No. 42 of 2022 on Civil Procedure addresses dispute proceedings in Articles 103 to 115. These provisions cover suspension of proceedings, discontinuation, lapse of a dispute due to time limits, and withdrawal of a case. However, the law does not explicitly define “termination of a dispute.”
2. Implicit Reference to Termination of a Dispute
   The term “termination of a dispute” is mentioned incidentally in relation to litigation costs. Article 133(1) of the Civil Procedure Law states:
   “The court must, when issuing a judgment or decision that concludes the dispute before it, decide on the litigation costs on its own initiative.”
   This suggests that a dispute is not considered terminated unless a judgment is issued on the subject matter of the litigation.
3. The Distinction Between Termination and Inadmissibility
   A dispute that has already been conclusively resolved by a final judgment cannot be relitigated. In such cases, the court rules that the case is inadmissible, rather than terminated. Termination occurs only when the court issues a substantive ruling on the case, whereas inadmissibility applies when a party attempts to re-litigate a matter already decided by a final judgment. For a case to be inadmissible, three elements must be identical between the prior and subsequent disputes:
   • The parties involved
   • The subject matter of the dispute
   • The legal basis for the claim

Questions Arising from the Court of Cassation’s Ruling

Given the Court of Cassation’s decision to dismiss the second appeal on the basis of “termination of the dispute,” several critical questions arise:

1. Can a court terminate a dispute without ruling on its subject matter?
   The Court of Cassation did not rule on the second appeal’s merits but declared that its decision on the first appeal terminated the dispute. However, termination, as defined by law, occurs only when a court issues a judgment on the subject matter. Does this mean the ruling contradicts the legal principle governing termination of disputes?
2. Does the ruling contradict the principles of inadmissibility?
   The doctrine of inadmissibility applies when a dispute has already been definitively resolved on the same legal and factual grounds. However, the Court of Cassation ruled that different legal grounds in the second appeal were irrelevant. Does this mean the principle of inadmissibility does not apply to cassation appeals?
3. Did the Court of Cassation fail to fulfill its duty to examine all appeal grounds?
   The Court of Cassation ruled that all cassation appeals against the same judgment should be decided together. However, in this case, it dismissed the second appeal without examining its grounds. If the appellant’s second appeal contained new, valid legal arguments, could this have led to the overturning of the original judgment? If so, who bears responsibility for denying the appellant’s right to a full review?

This ruling raises significant legal considerations and invites further discussion