Foreign verdicts must be weighed against domestic standards: IHC

• Justice Minhas rules against enforcement of Dubai decree
• Judgement notes criminal findings do not bind civil courts, calls for balance between global and local principles

ISLAMABAD: Dismissing a petition filed by the Gulf-based arm of a major technology company, the Islamabad High Court stresses the need to strike a balance between the principle of international comity and the protections afforded by domestic law when enforcing foreign courts’ decrees.

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

The high court set aside the July 2025 order of a local executing court, which had allowed the enforcement of the Dubai decree, while dismissing the execution petition filed under Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In his order, Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas ruled that determining civil liability based on criminal findings deprives litigants of independent adjudication essential to due process.

Justice Minhas observed that courts must independently determine whether foreign judgements satisfy Pakistani legal standards regarding jurisdiction, natural justice, fraud, public policy, and domestic law compliance.

The ruling clarified that while Section 44-A permitted execution of decrees from reciprocating territories like the UAE, it remained subject to exceptions under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). If any exception applies, the foreign judgement loses its conclusiveness and cannot be enforced.

Civil vs criminal proceedings

The core issue that proved decisive was that Dubai courts had substantially relied upon findings from criminal proceedings while determining the appellants’ civil liability, which was fundamentally inconsistent with settled Pakistani jurisprudence.

Civil and criminal proceedings operate independently. Criminal convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt, while civil liability is determined on preponderance of probabilities, the order read.

Citing the Supreme Court’s binding judgement in Karachi Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Hanif, the court reiterated that criminal findings do not bind civil courts. By virtue of Article 189 of the Constitution, this principle binds all Pakistani courts, including executing courts dealing with foreign decrees.

The counsel for Samsung Gulf Electronics FZE argued that the Dubai court had also relied on an expert report, not solely on criminal findings. The court, however, rejected this contention, holding that “the presence of an expert report does not remove the legal defect arising from the reliance placed upon the criminal judgement”.

“Once the findings of a criminal court become one of the foundations for determining civil rights and liabilities, the legality of such reliance must be examined in the light of the settled principles of law applicable in Pakistan,” the judgement stated.

The court found the foreign judgement attracted exceptions under Section 13(c) and (f) of the CPC, which apply where a judgement refuses to recognise Pakistani law or sustains a claim founded on breach of Pakistani law. The court also invoked Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees fair trial and due process. Determining civil liability based on criminal findings deprives litigants of independent adjudication essential to due process, it added.

Since the decree attracted two independent Section 13 exceptions, the court found it unnecessary to examine remaining objections regarding arbitration, forum shopping, and corporate liability. The exceptions are not cumulative,, the court noted, and even one was sufficient to render a foreign judgement inconclusive.

Case background

Latif Hakeem’s appeal arises from a commercial dispute between Samsung Gulf Electronics FZE and its former distributors, Greentalk FZE and Mobile Sales & Distribution (MS&D). Greentalk was initially Samsung’s sole distributor for Afghanistan, later expanding to Iran, while MS&D was set up in Pakistan at Samsung’s request.

The appellants claim the tech company extended open-account credit, incentives, and price-support programmes, but by May 2020 owed them about $26.6 million in unpaid reimbursements. The tech company countered that the distributors owed roughly $21 million under credit facilities and has pursued civil and criminal actions in multiple jurisdictions.

The distribution agreements dated January 1, 2020 included arbitration clauses under DIFC-LCIA Rules. However, Samsung filed cases in Dubai, Islamabad, and Lahore. Greentalk and MS&D initiated arbitration, claiming unpaid incentives and breach of contract.

The arbitral award later found the tech company’s court proceedings violated the arbitration agreement and permanently restrained it from continuing them. Nevertheless, it obtained a money decree from the Dubai Court of First Instance, upheld by the Dubai Court of Cassation, and sought its enforcement in Pakistan.

Published in Dawn, July 24th, 2026 ...