Explanation of Article 302
The article addresses the cases in which the statute of limitations is interrupted. The interruption of the statute of limitations means: the occurrence of a reason attributable either to the debtor or the creditor during the running of the statute of limitations, leading to the cancellation of the period that was running before this reason occurred. Once this reason is removed, the statute of limitations starts anew without accounting for the period prior to the interruption.
From this definition, the fundamental difference between interruption and suspension becomes clear; suspension does not affect the period prior to the reason for suspension, and the statute of limitations resumes after the reason for suspension is removed. However, in the case of interruption, a new statute of limitations period begins after the reason for interruption is removed, and all effects of the period prior to the interruption are nullified.
The article specifies the reasons for interruption exhaustively, which are:
The first reason: The debtor's acknowledgment of the right, explicitly or implicitly; the acknowledgment issued by the debtor of the right implies a waiver of the statute of limitations that elapsed before its issuance, and thus a new period begins from the date of this acknowledgment.
The debtor's acknowledgment may be explicit, and no specific form is required; it can be verbal or written in an official or ordinary document; it can even be in exchanged messages between the debtor and the creditor, and it can appear in an agreement with a third party, such as entering into a contract of assignment of his debt with another party. The debtor's acknowledgment of a void contract is valid as long as the acknowledgment is not affected by defects that invalidate it.
The acknowledgment may also be implicit, inferred from the debtor's actions that indicate his acknowledgment of the creditor's right. Examples include providing the creditor with a guarantor or possessory pledge as security for payment, requesting a deferment from the creditor, paying an installment of the debt, or requesting a set-off between the debt he owes and what is due to him from the creditor.
It is worth noting that if the debtor files a lawsuit claiming his discharge, it is not considered an implicit acknowledgment of the right.
Determining whether the implicit acknowledgment is an acknowledgment of the right or not falls within the discretionary power of the court, but if it refuses to accept the implicit acknowledgment, it must state the reasons for this in its judgment, ensuring oversight by the higher court.
The second reason: The creditor's demand for his right before the judiciary; a judicial demand is considered evidence of the creditor's insistence on his right, and it negates the presumption of payment, which is one of the bases used to justify the inadmissibility of hearing the lawsuit due to the statute of limitations.
A judicial demand refers to the lawsuit filed by the creditor before the judiciary to claim his right, whether this right is personal or in rem, and any lawsuit filed before bodies with judicial jurisdiction is also considered a judicial demand.
A judicial demand produces its effect even if filed before an incompetent court, as the reason is not to penalize the creditor for his ignorance of jurisdiction rules that may not be known to everyone.
For a judicial demand to produce its effect in interrupting the statute of limitations, it must be explicit and clearly indicate the creditor's insistence on his right against the debtor, and it must relate to the subject of the right.
There are cases where a judicial demand does not produce its effect in interrupting the statute of limitations, which are: -1- If the lawsuit is deemed as if it never existed due to not expediting it after being struck off, according to Article (55) of the Law of Sharia Pleadings. -2- If the proceedings are suspended and no request is made to resume them, and the plaintiff is deemed to have abandoned his lawsuit, according to Article (86) of the Law of Sharia Pleadings. -3- If the plaintiff abandons his lawsuit, according to Article (93) of the Law of Sharia Pleadings. -4- If the lawsuit is dismissed due to the invalidity of the statement of claim. 5- If the lawsuit is dismissed on the merits, due to the creditor's lack of entitlement to what he demands. 6- If the lawsuit is dismissed due to lack of interest or standing.
The third reason: Any judicial procedure undertaken by the creditor to insist on his right, provided that this procedure relates to the right the creditor seeks to enforce against the debtor.
Examples of such procedures include the creditor submitting a counterclaim in a lawsuit filed by his debtor against him to satisfy his right, or the creditor intervening in a lawsuit to claim his right from the debtor.
Examples of judicial procedures also include notifying the debtor of the enforceable title, submitting a request to the execution judge to execute against the debtor's assets, or to take precautionary seizure measures, or to seize what the debtor has with others, and the request submitted by the creditor to join the debtor's bankruptcy or distribute his assets.
Related To
Article 302
The statute of limitations shall be suspended in the following cases: a) If the debtor explicitly or implicitly acknowledges the right.
b) If a claim is filed before a judicial body, including a court lacking jurisdiction.
c) If the creditor initiates any other judicial proceeding to assert his right.