There are many methods for resolving disputes, including informal bargaining, mediation, conciliation, litigation, and arbitration. While litigation is the most common form of dispute resolution, it is still an option to resort to arbitration in most commercial matters. There is also now a “Preparation and Mediation” body in Economic Courts, where parties must work through the “Preparation and Mediation” body first, Article 8 of law no. 120 of 2008 establishing the Economic Courts (the “Economic Courts Law”). The body leads the mediation for cases in the Economic Courts in most circumstances, with the exceptions only for interim measures, criminal offences, and claims laid out in Articles 3 and 7 of the Economic Courts Law. Conciliation is also provided in the law, as available to the conciliation judge in partial claims, Article 64 of the Egyptian Civil and Commercial Procedures Code (the “ECCPC”). Additionally, the use of “Dispute Resolution” committees has seen broadening applicability, particularly in the arena of litigation before government. Certain unilateral methods also exist to resolve specific classes of dispute, such as issuing performance orders when the other party does not attend, i.e. does not respond to proceedings.

In most respects, the ECCPC is the main framework for litigation proceedings. The ECCPC outlines most of the procedural rules, including those related to the initiation of proceedings, submission of documents, and appealing verdicts. Most litigation in commercial matters is done in writing, with oral pleadings rare, except for cases which have a high monetary value at stake. The ECCPC also has a framework for the amical resolution of disputes in a non-adversarial manner. The other applicable law is Law no. 25 of 1968 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Evidence Law”) which governs the production of evidence in any dispute. Other procedural matters can be governed under a) Laws relating to the structure of courts, such as the Economic Courts Law establishing Economic Courts, Law No. 47 of 1972 on the State Council and b) Framework Codes such as the Civil Code and the Commercial Code. Substantive laws such as Law No. 82 of 2002 on Intellectual Property and Law No. 95 of 1992 on Capital Markets also include some procedural rules. Some matters may also be governed by ministerial decrees or circulars from the relevant ministries.

Egypt operates under a system based on civil law, which means that we have a dual justice system. On the one side, there are the ordinary courts, which are essentially a two-tiered system: Courts of First Instance and Courts of Appeal. We have the Court of Cassation to consider, which is a higher appellate court in a rare number of cases. The structure and organisation of the ordinary courts are set out in part by law no. 46 of 1972 on Judicial Authority (the “Judicial Authority Law”). Most cases are initially heard in the Courts of First Instance. However, small civil and commercial claims referred to as partial claims below EGP 200,000 and specific claims below EGP 30,000 as defined under Articles 42 to 43 of the ECCPC, are heard in the District Courts. These courts consist of a single judge acting as the court of first instance in matters of this nature. Appeals from the District Court decisions are referred to the Court of First Instance consisting of three (3) judges. Some civil and commercial cases, particularly large cases, those over EGP 200,000, are referred directly to the Court of First Instance and appeals to the Court of Appeal. These appeal courts have the same procedure, and substantive review of evidence, merits of case and matters of law. The highest court of the ordinary judiciary is the Court of Cassation, which is based in Cairo, and the court of final appeal. Court of Cassation only considers appellate court verdicts, on matters of law, and not facts or evidence. Verdicts are rendered by a panel of at least five (5) judges.

In the ordinary court system, and particularly the Courts of First Instance and Courts of Appeal there are specialised circuit courts, which are created to deal with customised cases, i.e. specific types of disputes such as tenancy disputes, rental circuit. Other circuits are established through statute, as an example, authorised under labour law no. 14 of 2025 (the “Labour Law”), the Labour Circuit. Furthermore, ordinary courts have sometimes designated judges to action emergent issues and the enforcement, expediting dispute settlement in ordinary courts without going through full litigation. Although generally disputes are heard at ordinary courts, ordinary courts are also home to courts with specific jurisdiction. For instance, Economic Courts are based on the Economic Courts Law. Economic Courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over economic disputes subject to particular substantive laws dealing with capital markets, monopolies, intellectual property, telecommunications, and consumer protection consistent with the mandates of the Economic Courts Law. Economic Courts are separate from District Courts, Courts of First Instance, and Courts of Appeal. Economic Courts hear commercial matters and related criminal offences arising from the specific laws stipulated in the provisions of the Economic Courts Law. Under that structure, Economic Courts have generally primary and appellate circuits: primary circuits disputes under EGP 15 million; appellate circuits hear appeals from primary circuits or disputes above that threshold. The specialised appellate judicial circuit within the Court of Cassation hears appeals from the appellate circuits.

Similarly, with respect to administrative disputes, they are typically heard by administrative judiciary, usually through the State Council (comparable to the Conseil d’État in France). In terms of structure, the State Council is an autonomous judiciary body comprised of adjudicative and non-adjudicative bodies. The courts, as part of the State Council, include the Disciplinary Courts, the Administrative Courts, the Courts of Administrative Justice, and the Supreme Administrative Court. Disciplinary Courts and Administrative Courts generally adjudicate on disputes concerning civil servants and government employees and Administrative Courts additionally are capable of hearing precise pieces of administrative contracts. Alternatively, other administrative matters are pursued within the Courts of Administrative Justice, which are the court of first review generally for administrative matters and serve at the same time as appellate courts for decisions from Disciplinary Courts and Administrative Courts. Courts of Administrative Justice operate via judges sitting in panels of three (3) judges, similar to Courts of First Instance in the ordinary judiciary system. The apex of administrative courts is the Supreme Administrative Court. Unlike the Court of Cassation in the ordinary courts, the Supreme Administrative Court can consider both questions of law and questions of merit in certain situations. The Court sits with five (5) judges when making a ruling, a similar structure to that of the Court of Cassation. In the interest of position, above the ordinary and administrative courts is the Supreme Constitutional Court. Although primary and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Constitutional Court is the review of the constitutionality of laws and decrees, other competencies include resolving disputes between conflicting final judgments from more than one court.

There is no established period for trial because it depends on the dispute. The length of time between commencing litigation and trial could depend on, amongst other things, the nature and complexity of the case, the number of parties to the dispute and when they made their submissions to the court. The locality of the court also makes a difference. Ordinary courts do not have a pre-trial process so it would usually take about one to two months for the first hearing to occur, as opposed to some specialised courts. In Economic Courts, for example, mediation may occur by the “Preparation and Mediation” subdivision, and may take some weeks. In Courts of Administrative Justice, the legal issue is always reviewed by the State Commissioners’ Body, which will issue a legal opinion, which is not binding, before the hearing can start, and this review usually takes a few months. In the courts of last resort, i.e. the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court, cases are often reviewed by specialised circuits and can dismiss these cases as inadmissible before reaching the trial stage which also takes about a couple of months before hearing and trial processes are allowed to commence.

Hearings usually take place in the public eye; however, in the interests of maintaining public order, morals or family values, the court may decide to hold hearings privately, either at the request of one of the parties or at the court’s own convenience. Article 20 of the Judicial Authority Law states that judgments are provided in the name of the people; therefore, judgments are public. However, case documents are not available to the public; they are available for preview only by parties with standing in the case, Article 3 of the ECCPC.

Limitation periods are addressed in Articles 374 to 388 of the Egyptian Civil Code (the “ECC”), in addition to specific limitation periods set out in other laws. The general rule that obligations are subject to limitation periods of fifteen (15) years. Nevertheless, there are certain obligations with shorter limitation periods; for example, periodical rights have a limitation period of five (5) years. Taxes and fees due to the state have a limitation period of three (3) years, while employee rights have a limitation period of one (1) year. Additionally, pursuant to Article 172 of the ECC, obligations arising from tort claims have a limitation period of three (3) years from the date the injured party becomes aware of the tort, with an absolute maximum of fifteen (15) years under all circumstances.

First, before commencing civil proceedings, it is advisable to serve a legal notice on the defendant requesting payment of the outstanding amount or compensation within a reasonable period. This step is based on Articles 157, 218, and 219 of the ECC and is particularly relevant in civil and commercial disputes involving substantive claims for the payment of amounts due under civil or commercial contracts, as well as claims for damages or compensation.

Serving such a legal notice provides the defendant with an opportunity to comply voluntarily with its contractual or legal obligations before legal action is initiated. If the defendant fails to respond or remedy the breach within the specified reasonable period, the claimant may then proceed with filing the civil claim before the competent court.

Secondly, with respect to employment disputes, particularly collective labour disputes, Articles 214, 215, and 216 of the Labour Law establish Conciliation Committees under the competent administrative authority to facilitate the amicable settlement of labour disputes before resorting to litigation or arbitration.

In addition, the Law prescribes a mandatory pre-litigation procedure for individual labour disputes. An employee who has a dispute with his or her employer must first submit a complaint or request to the competent Labour Office before filing a claim before the competent Labour Court. The primary role of the Labour Office is to facilitate an amicable settlement between the parties within the period prescribed by law. Only if such settlement efforts are unsuccessful may the employee proceed with filing a lawsuit before the competent court.

Accordingly, the Labour Law adopts mandatory pre-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms to encourage amicable settlements and minimise unnecessary litigation in employment disputes.

Thirdly, with respect to insurance disputes, Article 214 of the Unified Insurance Law No. 155 of 2024 establishes a Grievance Committee within the Financial Regulatory Authority (FRA). The Committee is competent to consider grievances relating to insurance matters, including petitions filed against decisions issued by the FRA, and to examine such disputes with a view to facilitating their resolution in accordance with the provisions of the Law.

In addition, the FRA has established the Market Participants Protection and Dispute Settlement Committee, which is entrusted with considering and settling disputes arising within the insurance sector. This mechanism reflects the legislator’s intention to provide an effective alternative dispute resolution framework and to encourage the amicable settlement of insurance disputes before resorting to judicial proceedings, where applicable.

Fourthly, the General Authority for Investment and Free Zones (GAFI) established the Investors Disputes Settlement Centre in 2009 to settle the disputes that may arise between investors through mediation, when establishing the Centre’s Mediation Rules, consideration was given to the most recent developments in international practice and comparative legislation, along with the recommendations of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Mediation is one of the alternatives to dispute resolution through courts, where a neutral person “Mediator” assists the parties in dispute in their quest for an amicable and quick settlement of their dispute in order to save their time, money and effort, without prejudicing their right to resort to litigation.

Since the objective of mediation is to reach an expedited solution that originates from the parties in dispute in a manner that fulfils their interests and spares them litigation’s complicated, lengthy procedures and unpredictable outcomes, it is advisable to regulate mediation to ensure a degree of procedural certainty while not undermining mediation’s desired goals. Following Egypt’s signing of the Singapore Convention on Mediation in 2026, it would be important to domestically regulate the mediation process and the obligations of all those participating in mediation.

Finally, and under the Egyptian legal system, it is generally accepted that parties may go to the courts directly, and there are no pre-action conduct requirements. However, Article 8 of the Economic Courts Law states that parties bringing actions before the Economic Court must go through the “Preparation and Mediation” body within those courts. This body will lead the mediation process in most cases, before trial. However, some claims are excluded from having to follow this process, including interim measures, criminal offences, and claims in Articles 3 and 7 of the Economic Courts Law. For some administrative disputes, resorting to “Dispute Resolution” Committees is compulsory before amicably resolving a dispute. In addition, for non-urgent administrative matters as soon as there is notice, then the parties must appear before the State Commissioners’ Body, which will review the parties’ submissions and issue a legal opinion to the court. The body may also, in some instances, suggest that the parties amicably settle their dispute in accordance with the consistent and longstanding jurisprudence of the administrative courts. Failure to comply with these pre-action procedures may render the judgment void.

Under Egyptian law, especially in the civil, commercial and administrative cases, the proceedings commence when the claimant submits the statement of claim (the “SOC”) to the clerk of the competent court. The document must indicate a brief summary of facts, the claims and legal basis for each claim, and lastly the relief(s) sought. The competent court will not examine the SOC but will schedule a hearing date. The SOC must be served on the defendant prior to that date to effect the SOC’s legal notification to the defendant. Service is accomplished by the court bailiffs, who will serve the defendant in person. If service in person is not possible, it will be effected by a form of administrative public notice through either the Office of Public Prosecution for a legal person, the local Police Chief for a natural person, or by registered mail.

The New Egyptian Criminal Procedures Law No. 174 of 2025 in Articles from 228 to 235, especially in the criminal cases, introduces comprehensive procedural reforms aimed at expediting criminal proceedings while enhancing the procedural safeguards afforded to defendants or accused persons. Among its most significant developments is the recognition of modern technological means, including mobile phones and electronic communication platforms, as legally valid methods for serving criminal notices and summonses, subject to specific statutory safeguards that ensure the authenticity and verifiability of service.

The key developments relating to the service of notices on defendants are summarised as follows:

1. Service through Modern Technological Means

The Law formally recognises service through modern technological means, including mobile phones, authenticated text messages, and approved electronic applications, as valid and legally enforceable methods of serving notices and summonses.

The validity of such service is conditional upon the mobile phone number or electronic contact details having been officially recorded as part of the defendant’s information during the investigation or in the relevant official records. In addition, the method of service must be capable of judicial verification, including proof of the date, time, content, and receipt of the notification.

2. Traditional Methods of Service

The Law retains the conventional procedures governing paper-based service of notices. A summons or notice is generally served personally upon the defendant at the address recorded on the defendant’s National Identification Card or at the defendant’s officially registered place of residence.

Where personal service is not possible, the notice may be delivered to the defendant’s authorised representative, domestic employee, or any person residing with the defendant, including a spouse, relative, or in-law, in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the Law.

If the defendant’s residence cannot be identified or no fixed place of residence is known, service may be effected through the competent administrative authority having jurisdiction over the defendant’s last known place of residence.

3. Parallel Application of Digital and Traditional Service

To ensure the uninterrupted administration of justice, the Law adopts a dual service regime whereby the newly introduced digital methods of service operate alongside the traditional paper-based procedures. This approach ensures that criminal proceedings and statutory deadlines are not adversely affected where electronic service is unavailable or cannot be effectively completed, while preserving the reliability and procedural integrity of the service process.

In order for the court in Egypt to have the authority to render a binding judgment over the merits of the dispute, the court must satisfy five types of jurisdictions, as organised by their respective chapters in the ECCPC. The types of jurisdictions that the court must satisfy include:

A- International jurisdiction: The court will need to determine whether Egyptian courts have jurisdiction over the dispute, whether exclusive jurisdiction resides with a foreign court as dictated by private international law and Articles 28 to 35 of the ECCPC.

B- Jurisdictional Competency: the court must decide whether the dispute may fall under either the ordinary judiciary or the administrative judiciary, that is, on behalf of the Courts of the State Council, given the Egyptian system of both ordinary courts and administrative courts.

C- Subject-Matter Competency: certain courts in Egypt may have exclusive jurisdiction over specific types of dispute explicitly established by their governing laws, for example, the Economic Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over specific commercial disputes and Family Courts may have exclusive jurisdiction over personal status disputes.

D- Territorial Competency: the court must determine its territorial competency over the dispute according to Articles 49 to 62 of the ECCPC. However, even though territorial competency is a matter of public order, the court will not address it of its own motion unless one of the parties raises an objection on the ground that the court lacks territorial competency over the dispute.

E- Competency based on the Dispute’s Value: the court must determine its competency based on the value of the dispute in monetary terms, as set forth in Articles 41 to 47 of the ECCPC. For ordinary courts, for disputes under EGP 200,000, District Courts are competent; if they are over EGP 200,000, Courts of First Instance are competent. Of note, Economic Courts also have primary circuits, for disputes under EGP 15 million, as well as appellate circuits hearing appeals from the primary circuit’s verdicts or disputes over EGP 15 million.

Where a dispute involves a foreign element, the Egyptian courts determine the applicable law by applying the conflict-of-law rules set out in Articles 6 to 28 of the ECC, which codify Egypt’s principles of private international law. These provisions enable the court to determine whether the dispute is governed by Egyptian law or the law of another jurisdiction, depending on the nature of the legal relationship and the applicable connecting factors.

Once the court determines that Egyptian law is the governing law, it proceeds to identify the specific statutory provisions applicable to the dispute. This assessment is based on the legal characterisation of the claims and the substantive relief sought in the SOC. Accordingly, the court will apply the relevant provisions of the applicable Egyptian legislation, such as the Civil Code, Commercial Law, Labour Law, Companies Law, or other relevant statutes, depending on the subject matter of the dispute.

Egyptian law does not provide an exhaustive list of circumstances in which claims may be disposed of without a full trial. Nevertheless, a claim may be resolved at an early stage of the proceedings in several circumstances, depending on the procedural posture of the case.

For example, the court may dismiss the claim where it determines that it lacks jurisdiction over the dispute. Likewise, proceedings may be terminated if the parties reach an amicable settlement or otherwise agree to discontinue the litigation.

In addition, where the claimant fails to appear at the first hearing after being duly notified, and the court considers that the documents submitted are insufficient to determine the merits of the case, the court may decide not to proceed with the claim in accordance with the applicable procedural rules. Depending on the circumstances, the claimant may subsequently be entitled to recommence or renew the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the law.

Accordingly, while Egyptian law generally contemplates that disputes will be determined following adversarial proceedings, it permits the early disposal or termination of claims in a number of procedural and jurisdictional circumstances.

Most interim remedies fall under the jurisdiction of the judge of temporary matters that may be the same judge having original jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute, where there are ongoing proceedings over the dispute. Applications for interim remedies shall be made by separate interim petition before the judge of temporary matters. These measures are temporary and they last until the matter has been resolved by the competent court at the end of the main case.

A common form of interim remedies in commercial disputes is the conservatory seizure of the assets of the debtor in disputes concerning the existence of a debt and these remedies are aimed at conserving the value of the debt until the completion of a trial. This is set out in the provisions of Articles 316 to 324 of the ECCPC.

Another type of interim remedy is possession claims, which are also set out in Articles 958 to 975 of the ECC. The types of interim remedies relate to the protection of the possession of immovable property and restoring possession. These are brought before the competent judge according to the value of the property in dispute.

There are, however, several other types of interim remedies which exist under various legal regimes. These processes include actions for preservation of status and requests for pre-trial testimonial, both referenced in the Evidence Law. Moreover, other interim remedies such as appointing a temporary manager over one of the parties’ assets are provided in the ECCPC.

Following the commencement of the claim, the SOC must be served on the defendant. As a matter of principle, service is effected by the court before which the action has been filed. In practice, however, the claimant is responsible for completing service and must submit proof that the SOC has been served before the first hearing. Pursuant to Article 70 of the ECCPC, if the SOC is not served on the defendant within three (3) months from the date of filing, and such failure is attributable to the claimant, the court may, upon the defendant’s request, rule that the action shall be deemed as though it had never been filed.

Following service, the parties may submit written memoranda, documentary evidence, and other supporting documents. Documents that could have been submitted with the SOC may also be filed at the first hearing or at any subsequent hearing. Article 97 of the ECCPC grants the court discretion to accept or reject documents submitted at a later stage of the proceedings. Where the court accepts late-filed documents and their submission causes delay, it may impose a fine on the party responsible.

In practice, parties commonly submit memoranda and supporting documents throughout the proceedings at successive hearings. The principal limitation arises once the court declares the case reserved for judgment. After that stage, no further memoranda or documents may be submitted unless the court expressly permits their submission or decides to reopen the pleadings.

There is no fixed timetable for the submission of written memoranda or evidence after the commencement of proceedings. Rather, submissions are typically made at each hearing in accordance with the timetable set by the court until the case is reserved for judgment.

The law provides strict rules against lawyers, doctors, principals and similar professionals prohibiting them from disclosing any information entrusted to them by their principals or obtained under their professional role, even following termination of that professional role and are only permitted to disclose on the instructions of principals if they are sworn under oath, or if the commission of a misdemeanour or felony occurs, however following the events, which are covered in Article 66 of the Evidence Law, and Article 65 of law no. 17 of 1983 on Lawyering (the “Advocates Law”). Civil servants are covered under the same circumstances, and if they are requested to disclose to one of the parties or the court, they are obliged to disclose, set out in Article 65 of the Evidence Law. Typically, these exceptions occur in proceedings based on public interest, in particular highly politicised, however these are in limits on criminal or administrative proceedings.

In civil and commercial matters in Egypt, witness evidence is generally admissible where the law allows proof by testimony, particularly under the Civil and Commercial Code and the Evidence Law. Witness testimony may be taken either upon request of one of the parties or on the court’s own initiative, provided that it is relevant and admissible to the subject matter of the dispute.

Egyptian law permits both oral and written forms of witness evidence. Written witness statements, including affidavits, are governed by Articles 103 to 104 of the Evidence Law, whereas oral testimony is regulated primarily by Articles 60 to 97 of the same law.

With respect to oral testimony, the law requires that the court, and the parties where applicable, specify the facts and incidents on which witness evidence is to be taken. The examination of witnesses typically takes place before the panel of judges, although the court may delegate this function to one of its judges. As a general rule, witness hearings are conducted on the same day unless the court determines that continuation on another date is justified.

As regards cross-examination, the court may permit the parties to directly question witnesses. Alternatively, the judge may conduct the examination by posing questions submitted by the parties.

Depositions, in the sense of pre-trial recorded witness examinations conducted outside the court, are not permitted under Egyptian procedural law. However, in practice, a party may obtain a notarised statement or officially authenticated declaration from a witness before the competent authentication authority, such as the Notary Public. Such a document may be submitted to the court, which retains full discretion to assess its evidentiary weight as part of the documentary evidence.

Expert evidence is specifically referred to within the Egyptian judicial system, and the courts treat it positively, but it is non-binding. The Evidence Law, Articles 134 to 162, governs much of what is contained within the expert role, including the conduct of experts, the structure of expert reports, remuneration, and procedures.

Expert witnesses can either be appointed by the parties or by the court. Court appointment is more common and typically done with a preliminary judgment that appoints the expert and details the work that needs to be completed along with the technical issues relevant to the case. Depending on the complexity of the matter, a single expert or a panel of three (3) experts may be appointed. During the mandate of the expert, there can be multiple sessions allowing the parties to submit the relevant documents and provide oral arguments to clarify their positions and assist the expert in writing a complete report at the end of the process. The court proceedings are suspended until the submission of the expert report.

At the conclusion of the assignment, the expert prepares a detailed report containing a summary of the parties’ claims and observations, the documents reviewed, the tasks assigned, the steps taken, and the expert’s findings and technical opinion on the issues in dispute. The report is submitted to the court and made available to the parties, who are entitled to review it and obtain copies.

The parties may submit objections to the expert report before the court. In appropriate cases, the court may order a supplementary report or appoint another expert or a panel of three (3) experts to re-examine the same issues.

Ultimately, expert reports serve as advisory evidence to assist the court in assessing technical matters, and the court retains full discretion in evaluating them; they are not binding on the judge.

Final decisions from Courts of Appeal may be challenged by extraordinary means of appeal. This is done by: 1) filing an appeal before the Court of Cassation, within sixty (60) days from the date of the decision; or 2) seeking a petition for reconsideration before the court that issued the judgment. This remedy is strictly limited to the exhaustive grounds set out in Article 241 of the ECCPC. As a general rule, such an application must be filed within forty (40) days from the date of the judgment. However, where the grounds for review fall within the first four categories under Article 241, the forty-day period runs from the date on which the applicant became aware of the relevant circumstance.

Interim decisions in urgent matters are appealable by the parties within fifteen (15) days of the decision, as stated in Article 227 of the ECCPC.

In Egypt, the enforcement of civil and commercial foreign judgments must first be executed by way of an exequatur, which is primarily governed by the provisions in Articles 296 to 301 of the ECCPC. The proceedings for enforcement would normally take place before the Court of First Instance which would have regional jurisdiction over the dispute if it was commenced in Egypt. The court must, beforehand, examine that the foreign judgment has satisfied certain preconditions before issuing the exequatur: 1) Reciprocity: the foreign state must recognise and enforce Egyptian judgments by way of reciprocity. 2) Jurisdiction: the foreign court must not have violated the dominant rules of private international law and Egyptian courts should not have exclusive jurisdiction in relation to the foreign court, and the foreign court must have been competent according to its jurisdictional rules in its domestic law. 3) Proper Notice and Representation: the parties must have been properly noticed and represented. 4) Final and Not Subject to Appeal: the judgment must have been final and not subject to appeal in the foreign state. 5) Public Policy: the foreign judgment should not be contrary to public policy in Egypt or contradict a subsequent domestic judgment.

The general rule is that the losing party in any court proceedings is obliged to pay all costs incurred during the proceedings to the government, Article 184 of the ECCPC. This is determined by the end of the proceedings. These costs are then calculated based on the provisions of Judicial Fees Law No. 90 of 1944 and Articles 36 to 41 of the ECCPC, together with costs payable to the advocates’ pension fund, Article 187 of the Advocates Law. However, the parties’ legal fees for instructing counsel are not included in these court-assessed costs. However, it does not stop the prevailing party from filing a separate compensation claim from the losing party for damages and costs incurred as a result of their litigious action.

In cases where each party wins and loses on some claims, the court may allocate the costs accordingly: each party may bear the costs resulting from their own claims; the costs may be divided equally; or one party may be held responsible for all costs. In some cases, the winning party may be ordered to bear the costs if the court decides that the proceedings were unnecessary, Article 185 of the ECCPC. The court also has the discretion to order a party to compensate for the costs incurred due to a malicious or abusive claim, Article 188 of the ECCPC. The losing party may challenge the assessment of the costs by filing a grievance within eight (8) days from being notified, provided that proper service of the cost notification has been effected.

Under Egyptian law, collective redress in civil and commercial claims, such as class actions, is generally not regulated as claims are limited to specific parties involved in the dispute. However, Articles 39 and 82 of the ECCPC and the precedents from the Supreme Administrative Court and the Court of Cassation allow multiple individual claims to be brought under the same SOC as long as there is either a common legal basis, legal standing, or cause. Nevertheless, some lower administrative courts dismiss coordinated individual claims despite the precedents from the Supreme Administrative Court. Additionally, the annulment proceedings of administrative decrees already act as a functional form of collective redress, having absolute and collective effect not just the person(s) who filed the suit. Furthermore, under the Labour Law, coordinated actions may be permitted in collective labour disputes against employers. Such disputes must first undergo conciliation procedures, and if no settlement is reached, the matter is referred to the Mediation and Arbitration Centre. Technically, the dispute is then resolved through arbitration, rather than through traditional litigation before the labour circuits of the ordinary courts.

The joinder of a new party may occur through one of two methods: 1) at the request of one of the parties to the dispute, if the joinder of that third party is deemed crucial to the trial; or 2) at the request of that third party directly, by appearing before the court and requesting to join the proceedings. Additionally, there are two forms of third-party joinder: a) In the first, the third party brings separate claims related to the subject matter of the dispute. This type of joinder is only permitted before the Court of First Instance; or b) In the second, the third party joins in support of one of the existing parties’ claims, without raising any new claims, and this type of joinder may be allowed for the first time before the Court of Appeal.

Regarding the consolidation of two sets of proceedings, the court may order consolidation only if the same parties are involved in both proceedings and the subject matter of the disputes is related.

Third-party funding of litigation proceedings is not currently regulated under Egyptian law, including the main procedural codes such as the ECCPC or the Advocates Law. The liability and obligations of the third-party funder, as well as any restrictions, will revert to the general rules in the ECC, meaning it will largely depend on the contractual agreement between the litigating party and the third-party funder. Although it is still not a common practice in Egypt at the present, there are ongoing discussions about third-party funding as a potential area of emerging investment, particularly among leading financial services providers in the region.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the efforts to mechanise and digitise litigation proceedings. Most notably, Law No. 146 of 2019 amending the Economic Courts Law establishing Economic Courts, was enacted to permit electronic filing of cases and electronic service of notices. During the same period, pilot programmes for conducting remote hearings were launched, and a digital litigation platform for Economic Courts was developed in collaboration with leading technology companies. Additionally, Ministerial Decree No. 8548 of 2020 established an electronic registry for these Economic Courts, which became fully operational by late 2022. By the end of 2023, the total number of cases initiated electronically had reached 7,688. This coincided with an increase in the use of electronic and/or remote technologies in courts for trial proceedings even in criminal cases. Similar digitalisation efforts have been gradually extended to ordinary courts since August 2020, reaching a total of sixty-four (64) courts, including District Courts, Courts of First Instance, and Courts of Appeal, by the end of 2023. Moreover, all ordinary courts have been expanding their digital solutions since the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, a separate pilot was also launched in thirty-eight (38) courts for the electronic service of court notices and communications. Additionally, the Prime Minister declared the period from 17 March 2020 to 27 June 2020 a force majeure event due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the subsequent proceedings during 2021, the Court of Cassation has confirmed that this period effectively extended the time limits for filing appeals.

The main advantage of the Egyptian judicial system remains its accessibility, primarily due to relatively low litigation costs. This is combined with Egypt’s strategic location, and similar legal traditions to numerous Arab and European countries with a sophisticated legal framework and established jurisprudence in private international law developed from the times of Mixed Courts. The government has been keen on smoothing out legal obstacles facing foreign investors and multinational corporations. This makes Egypt an attractive venue for resolving international commercial disputes, which can be followed by successful enforcement abroad. This also emanates from the fact that Egypt is party to several bilateral and multilateral treaties, including the Riyadh Convention on Judicial Cooperation. However, the significant disadvantage remains the multiplicity of jurisdictions that litigants may resort to, each with different procedures and applicable laws, some of which are conflicting and archaic. This can make litigation lengthy and complex before a final decision is reached. Additionally, rules on evidence, disclosure, and discovery remain underdeveloped, with hearings largely confined to written submissions. Similarly, fines and other penalties for procedural violations remain largely ineffective. In certain civil and commercial matters, a fast-track approach is sometimes pursued by initiating criminal proceedings and then claiming civil damages within the criminal process. However, this dual enforcement mechanism, and the breadth of criminal codes, can also present some risks and uncertainties. To address such concerns, the Economic Courts have been specifically designed to streamline commercial dispute resolution and reduce delays, ensuring timely and effective outcomes. While the Economic Courts are leading the digital transformation of Egypt’s judiciary, the government is promoting digitisation across the entire system, including the rollout of e-litigation platforms at various court levels.

Egypt’s economic reforms have necessitated overhauling a number of important laws, including Bankruptcy Law, Competition Law, Companies Law, Customs Law, and Unified Insurance Law. While these legislative changes will be the primary driver for litigation proceedings in the years to come, the expansion of non-banking financial institutions and activities is expected to be equally influential for driving commercial disputes in the future. The current transitory period is bound to carry some uncertainties, where litigation would be one of the primary dispute resolution methods utilised by parties to resolve these ambiguities. Additionally, the new laws streamline many of the legal processes and procedures which can encourage parties to view litigation proceedings more favourably.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to replace many of the tasks currently performed by court secretaries and clerks. In 2024, a protocol was signed between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology to integrate AI into litigation proceedings. One of the initial applications involves the automated transcription of court hearings. It is expected that additional tasks will also be automated, leading to greater efficiency, cost reduction, and faster adjudication of disputes. Language barriers may be minimised, reducing the burden of translating documents and interpreting hearings. As a result, demand for technologists within law firms may rise, with each firm striving to gain a competitive edge through technological adoption. This is coupled with increasing salience of legal technology, due to the efforts to localise many existing legal tech solutions. Nevertheless, legal expertise in digital technologies will be equally important, especially as claims arising under digital and tech-related laws continue to grow.