| Element List | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Introduction | With reference to the company's announcement on the Tadawul on: 12-5-1442 Corresponding to 27-12-2020 regarding that the judgment issued in favor of the company has acquired final status by the passage of the period specified for objection to it (thirty days) by the defendant (the seller) and has become enforceable. And that the company will take the necessary actions in this regard. |
The company announces that it received the following from the company's lawyer on 1-4-2021:
- The defendant (the land seller) submitted a petition request to the Court of Appeal in Riyadh on 5-8-1442 Corresponding to 18-3-2021, to revoke the judgment and return the case after the expiration of the statutory objection period and after the company submitted to the enforcement court to implement the ruling against the defendant, And that the petition request was accepted and considered by the court that issued the judgment and ruled the case again as follows:
First: The court retracted the previous ruling issued on 22-3-1442 Corresponding to 8-11-2020, which stipulated the dissolution of the sale contract concluded between the company and the defendant and what was entitled to it, and obliging the defendant (the seller of the land) to pay the amount of SR 202 million to the the company.
Second: Rejecting the plaintiff’s (company)’s case for lack of specific jurisdiction because the case is one of the major cases whose amounts exceed SR 100 million and that it is covered by the jurisdiction of the large cases department in the General Court in Riyadh, and that the plaintiff (the company) has the right to object to the judgment by way of appeal within thirty days from The date of issuance of the judgment 19-8-1442 Corresponding to 1-4-2021.
The company confirms that it will take all necessary measures to preserve its rights and the rights of its shareholders.
1- The company filed a lawsuit with the General Court in Riyadh against the seller on 18-4-1441 Corresponding to 15-12-2019, demanding him to return the amount paid to him from the price of the land in the amount of SR 202 million as a result of canceling the land deed and the court accepted jurisdiction and considered the case.
(According to the company's announcement published on the Tadawul on 18-4-1441 Corresponding to 15-12-2019).
2- The court held several judicial sessions, and the company submitted its supporting documents to the judge of the court, and the defendant (seller) did not attend any of the sessions, despite being notified by the court in accordance with the statutory procedures.
3- The court has established that the land deed has been canceled, and the seller received the checks issued by the company in the name of the seller with the amount paid to him from the land price of SR 202 million, and that they were deposited in his personal account.
4- The court issued a preliminary ruling in favor of the company on 22-3-1442 Corresponding to 8-11-2020 to terminate the sale contract between the company and the seller and what is entitled to it, and obligate the seller to pay the amount of SR 202 million in favor of the company, and that this ruling is considered in the presence at the seller and no need to inform him according to the pleadings system, and the period of objection to the judgment by way of appeal has been set for thirty days, and that if the defendant (the seller) does not submit his objection to the judgment during the period, his right to appeal is extinguished and the final judgment is acquired based on the legal pleadings system.
)According to the company's announcement published on the Tadawul website on 23-3-1442 Corresponding to 9-11-2020)
5- The court approved the primary ruling by the elapse of the period specified for the objection without the seller making the objection through an appeal in accordance with the pleading system, and the judgment became final and gained decisiveness and enforcement.
)According to the company's announcement published on the Tadawul website on 12-5-1442 Corresponding to 27-12-2020).
6- The company sent a letter to the seller on 16-5-1442 Corresponding to 30-12-2020, informing him of the final ruling issued by the General Court in Riyadh and asking him to return the amount of the ruling amounting to SR 202 million, and a copy of the judgment issued against him was attached.
7- The broker at the land contacted the company to discuss options for reaching an amicable settlement, and the company insisted that any discussion must be based on clear grounds and a letter from the seller authorizing whomever he sees to negotiate with the company regarding the payment of the adjudicated sum.
8- The company received a letter dated 17-6-1442 Corresponding to 30-1-2021 from the seller authorizing an agent for him to negotiate with the company to reach an amicable settlement, and the company requested that communication be through its lawyer and to present the options (offers) that would preserve the rights of the company provided him with specified period and the company did not receive a response within the specified period.
9- On 4-7-1442 corresponding to 15-2-2021, the company requested the execution court to implement the ruling issued against the seller to compel him to pay the adjudged amount, and the enforcement court took its legal procedures in such cases, including addressing the Central Bank of Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Justice, and the Financial Market Authority for the seizure. On any assets it owns, and other actions.
10- The seller's agent contacted the company’s lawyer, requesting some time to submit offers for the friendly settlement and requesting the suspension of implementation until a settlement is reached. He was informed of the refusal to suspend the execution and to present his offers and settlement options so that the company could study that.
11- The seller's agent sent a letter on 20-7-1442 Corresponding to 3-3-2021, proposing by proxy on behalf of the seller options to settle the amount of the judgment for plots of land (land bonds whose transactions are not finished and not registered in the name of the seller and one of them is located on Madinah Road in Jeddah, and the other is its location Southwest of the naval base in the city of Jeddah) or shares owned by the seller in one of the closed joint stock companies and requests to suspend implementation until a settlement is reached, and by studying the options (offers) the company rejected the options of the offers presented, and informed the agent that to suspend the implementation, a bank guarantee must be submitted in the amount decided in favor of the company .
12- The seller submitted on 5-8-1442, Corresponding to 18-3-2021, the petition memorandum to the Court of Appeal citing a number of reasons, and in the judicial session on 15-8-1442 Corresponding to 28-3-2021, the judge accepted the petition submitted by the seller and stopped the execution procedures temporarily until a subsequent session so the company to submit a response to the petition request.
13- In the litigation session on 19-8-1442 Corresponding to 1-4-2021, the company submitted its response to the petition request, and the seller’s lawyer requested that because the amount of the case is more than 200 million SR, then looking into this is the jurisdiction of the General Department for large cases of the General Court in Riyadh And the court issued the judgment indicated in the introduction to this announcement to withdraw the ruling issued in favor of the company, and to dismiss the case for lack of specific jurisdiction.
The company confirms that it will take all necessary legal measures to preserve its rights and the rights of its shareholders, and there is no financial impact at the present time from the
The Capital Market Authority and Saudi Exchange take no responsibility for the contents of this disclosure, make no representations as to its accuracy or completeness, and expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever for any loss arising from, or incurred in reliance upon, any part of this disclosure, and the issuer accepts full responsibility for the accuracy of the information contained in it and confirms, having made all reasonable enquiries, that to the best of their knowledge and belief, there are no other facts or information the omission of which would make the disclosure misleading, incomplete or inaccurate.