Qatar Judgment

Tamanna BNPL LLC v Nedal Bakhit

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Defendant was duly served, failed to file a defence within the permitted time, and the claim was for a specified sum; therefore default judgment was granted for QAR 3,996.75 and costs.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted for the Claimant.

Orders

  • The Defendant is directed to pay to the Claimant the amount of QAR 3,996.75 forthwith.
  • The Defendant is directed to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Claimant in these claims; the quantum of such costs is to be determined by the Registrar if not agreed.

02

Material facts

Parties

TAMANNA BNPL LLC

Claimant Counsel: Hassan Mohamed Al-Marzouqi Law Firm (Doha, Qatar)

NEDAL BAKHIT

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Claim Amount: QAR 3,996.75

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil and Commercial / Default Judgment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Claimant alleged that it is a QFC-registered company offering BNPL facilities, that the Defendant entered a written BNPL agreement on 15 March 2026, defaulted on instalment payments, and became contractually liable for QAR 3,996.75.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    article 8(3)(c)(4) of the QFC Law as amended (Law No. 7 of 2005)

    The Court has jurisdiction over civil and commercial disputes arising from transactions, contracts or arrangements taking place between entities established within the QFC and entities established in the State but outside the QFC, unless the parties agree otherwise.

  2. 02

    articles 18.3.2 and 22.2 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures; article 8 of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022 on Small Claims

    Default judgment may be granted where the claim was duly served, the Defendant failed to file a defence within the prescribed period, and the claim is for a specified amount of money.

  3. 03

    article 22.5 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures

    A default judgment shall include the names of the parties, the amount awarded (if applicable), and confirmation that it was issued due to the Defendant’s failure to file a Defence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Defendant was duly served, failed to file a defence within the permitted time, and the claim was for a specified sum; therefore default judgment was granted for QAR 3,996.75 and costs.

Court disposition

Default judgment granted for the Claimant.

  • The Defendant is directed to pay to the Claimant the amount of QAR 3,996.75 forthwith.
  • The Defendant is directed to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Claimant in these claims; the quantum of such costs is to be determined by the Registrar if not agreed.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

Judgment

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Emir of the State of Qatar Neutral Citation: [2026] QIC (F) 35

IN THE QATAR FINANCIAL CENTRE

CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL COURT

FIRST INSTANCE CIRCUIT Date: 21 June 2026 CASE NO: CTFIC0032/2026 Claimant Defendant

TAMANNA BNPL LLC v

NEDAL BAKHIT

JUDGMENT Before: Justice Fritz Brand Order 1. The Defendant is directed to pay to the Claimant the amount of QAR 3,996.75 forthwith.

2. The Defendant is directed to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Claimant in these claims. The quantum of such costs is to be determined by the Registrar if not agreed. Judgment 1. This is a request for default judgment pursuant to article 22 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures (the ‘Rules’). The Claimant is a company registered in the Qatar Financial Centre (‘QFC’) and offers “buy now, pay later” (‘BNPL’) facilities to customers. The Defendant is a Sudanese national who resides in Qatar and who entered into a written BNPL agreement with the Claimant on 15 March 2026. The Claimant’s uncontroverted allegations are that the Defendant defaulted on payment of the instalments under the agreement and that in consequence he became contractually liable to pay the outstanding amount under the agreement of QAR 3,996.75.

2. This Court has jurisdiction under article 8(3)(c)(4) of the QFC Law as amended (Law No. 7 of 2005), which states that the Court has jurisdiction over: Civil and commercial disputes arising from transactions, contracts or arrangements taking place between entities established within the QFC and…entities established in the state but outside the QFC, unless the parties agree otherwise.

3. Whereas: i. The claim was duly served on the Defendant on 25 May 2026 in accordance with the provisions of article 18.3.2 of the Rules. ii. The Defendant failed to file and serve a Defence within the 14-day period during which it was allowed to do so under article 8 of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022 on Small Claims. iii. The claim is for a specified amount of money as contemplated by article 22.2 of the Rules. 2 iv. Article 22.5 of the Rules states: The default judgment shall include the names of the parties, the amount awarded (if applicable), and confirmation that it was issued due to the Defendant’s failure to file a Defence. No further reasons shall be stated in the judgment.

4. I hereby grant an order for payment of the Claimant’s claim for QAR 3,996.75 without giving further reasons. By the Court, [signed] Justice Fritz Brand A signed copy of this Judgment has been filed with the Registry. Representation The Claimant was represented by the Hassan Mohamed Al-Marzouqi Law Firm (Doha, Qatar). The Defendant did not appear and was not represented. 3

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

article 22 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

article 8(3)(c)(4) of the QFC Law as amended (Law No. 7 of 2005)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

article 18.3.2 of the Court’s Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

article 8 of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022 on Small Claims

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

article 22.2 of the Court’s Rules

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

article 22.5 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.