Judgments

This case concerned an application by the borrower to set aside an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre (IAC) of the AIFC, which had ordered the borrower to pay accrued loan interest of KZT 242.8 million. The claimant argued that the arbitrator based the award on a factual finding not advanced by either party, namely that the parties had agreed to reduce the loan amount, and therefore exceeded the scope of the arbitration. The AIFC Court dismissed the claim, holding that the arbitrator’s reasoning was within the scope of the issues submitted to arbitration, that the claimant was effectively challenging the merits of the award rather than a procedural defect, and therefore the award remained enforceable.

Private Company iKapitalist Ltd applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued in IAC Arbitration Case No. 39/2023 concerning unpaid debt and related financial obligations owed by ABN Alyans LLP and two individual guarantors. After reviewing the arbitral award, the Court found the application justified and ordered the defendants jointly and severally to pay the outstanding debt, contractual penalties, legal representation costs, and the arbitrator’s fees. The Court granted enforcement of the award while allowing the defendants 14 days to apply to set aside the enforcement order.

The claimant sought permission to appeal an AIFC Court judgment that awarded USD 100,000 for the defendant’s breach of a settlement agreement through disparaging social media posts, arguing that USD 5,000,000 should have been awarded instead. The claimant contended that the trial judge improperly reduced the contractual penalty under Article 297 of the Civil Code and incorrectly approached the burden of proof regarding losses. The AIFC Court refused permission to appeal, finding that the judge had properly exercised his discretion, that the appeal had no real prospect of success, and that the judgment did not create a binding precedent.

Commercial Properties Ltd applied to the AIFC Court for approval of a corporate restructuring involving the merger of Dostyk Plaza Limited Liability Partnership and Shymkent Plaza Limited Liability Partnership into the claimant company. The court found that the sole owner of all entities had approved the merger, creditors had been notified, assets and liabilities were adequately protected, and the arrangement satisfied the requirements of the AIFC Companies Regulations. The court sanctioned the arrangement under Sections 124 and 126 of the AIFC Companies Regulations and ordered the merger to proceed according to the Agreement on Merger dated 16 January 2024.

Ms. Aisulu Omarova and Mr. Altai Omarov sued NEF Qazaqstan LLP and Timur Gayrimenkul Geliştirme Yapi ve Yatirim A.Ş. in the AIFC Small Claims Court seeking repayment of matured bonds, penalties, and costs after the issuer failed to redeem bonds and pay amounts due on maturity. The court found that the issuer admitted its repayment obligation, upheld the contractual penalty provisions under AIFC law, and ruled that the guarantor was jointly and severally liable under the guarantee agreement. Judgment was entered in favor of the claimants, ordering both defendants to pay KZT 10,285,537.83 to the first claimant and KZT 5,142,768.91 to the second claimant within 28 days.

Cashdrive challenged a Written Directive issued by the financial regulator, arguing that the regulator had acted unfairly, misapplied regulatory requirements, and unlawfully enforced currency and client-classification rules against its lending business. The Court found that the regulator had committed procedural errors by failing to follow the prescribed decision-making process, but concluded that those failures were not material because Cashdrive was subsequently able to make extensive representations, which were considered by the regulator. The Court further held that the Currency Rules applied prospectively to Cashdrive’s operations notwithstanding the earlier issuance of its licence, and rejected the argument that Cashdrive had a legitimate expectation exempting it from compliance with later regulatory requirements.