OMAN Law and Practice Contributed by: Mohammed Al Khalili, Jenna Al Bakry, Joud Lashko and Abdullah Al Raiisi, Al Khalili, Al Ghailani & Co LLP
guardianship of public rights rather than privatised collective funding. 3.10 Disclosure and Privilege Oman, as a civil law jurisdiction, does not recognise pre-trial discovery or disclosure in the common law sense. The CCPL vests control of the evidentiary pro- cess exclusively in the court, which determines what evidence is relevant, admissible, and necessary for adjudication. The procedural structure is inquisitorial rather than adversarial, meaning that: • the parties are under no obligation to disclose documents adverse to their case; • there is no system of general disclosure, interroga- tories, or pre-trial depositions; and • evidence is produced upon the court’s direction, either at the initiative of the judge or upon specific, justified request of a party. The relevant provisions of the Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions promulgated by Royal Decree 68/2008 (the “Law of Evidence”) and the CCPL collectively require each party to “prove [their] claim and rebut the claim of [their] opponent” (Article 1 of the Law of Evidence). However, this burden does not entail mutual document production, but rather sub- mission of specific documentary proof supporting one’s position. Court-Directed Production of Documents Although there is no broad pre-trial discovery, targeted disclosure may be ordered under judicial supervision. Pursuant to the CCPL, the court may – on its own motion or at a party’s request – compel the production of a document where that document is considered decisive for determining the dispute. The requesting party must identify the document with sufficient preci- sion and demonstrate that it is held by the opposing party or a third party. The court will then issue an order of exhibition, limited strictly to that document or class of documents. Failure to comply with a lawful order for production may lead the court to draw adverse inferences. How-
ever, no contempt sanctions equivalent to those in common law jurisdictions exist. In collective or multiparty actions under Articles 60–61 of the CCPL, evidentiary requests are handled identi- cally. Each claimant must prove their interest and may rely on shared exhibits only to the extent that they substantiate the common legal cause. Trial-Stage Evidence and Judicial Control Evidence is adduced exclusively during the trial phase, subsequent to the registration of the statement of claim and the service of process. At this stage, the court exercises plenary discretion over the eviden- tiary process and may, within the scope of its judicial authority: • examine and assess the documentary record sub- mitted by the parties; • hear and evaluate witness testimony; • appoint one or more experts to conduct technical or financial examinations; and • direct the admission, exclusion, or supplementa- tion of evidence at any stage prior to the issuance of final judgment. All evidentiary material must be produced in open ses- sion or by means of filings formally authorised by the presiding judge. No party may introduce additional or late documents except with the court’s express leave, thereby ensuring procedural regularity, judicial control, and equality of arms between the litigants. Omani procedure maintains a highly controlled evi- dentiary regime. There is no pre-trial discovery and disclosure occurs only under judicial supervision when the court deems a document material to the dispute. Privilege is rooted in statutory confidential- ity, protecting lawyer–client communications, profes- sional secrets, and private documents from compelled production. This framework reflects Oman’s civil law commitment to procedural integrity, judicial control, and respect for confidentiality, rather than adversarial disclosure or expansive discovery mechanisms. 3.11 Remedies Although Oman does not recognise class actions as a distinct procedural instrument, litigants proceeding
231 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook