Judicial principles and studies
Financial Leasing Activity and the Summary/Interim Judge – Jurisdiction and Procedure
A brief summary explaining when a contract qualifies as a financial lease and the conditions for a lessor to apply to the summary/interim judge, with limits on the judge's review of urgent measures.
Leases and use rights
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
A brief summary explaining when a contract qualifies as a financial lease and the conditions for a lessor to apply to the summary/interim judge, with limits on the judge's review of urgent measures.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
The decision addresses legal points on the jurisdiction of the summary/interim judge in cases of repossession requests within financial leasing. It notes that urgent matters are examined diligently under Article 33(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, and that an appellate court that annuls an urgent order need not remand the request to the interim judge but may decide the matter itself.
Summary
Article 4 of the Financial Leasing Law indicates a contract qualifies as a financial lease when two conditions are met: the lessor acquires the asset from a supplier with the aim of leasing it under a financial lease contract, and the lessor obliges to enable the lessee to use the asset in return for rent. Under Article 22, a financial lessor may apply to the summary/interim judge to recover the asset if the contract is a financial lease and the lessee refuses to return the asset at the end of the lease term or fails to pay due rental installments. Such an application is an urgent request governed by the provisions on urgent requests, requiring both urgency and preservation of the underlying right for the interim judge to exercise jurisdiction.
Practical significance
The decision emphasizes that urgent relief is meant to be a temporary measure protecting the party most entitled until the substantive court rules, without deciding the main dispute. It also confirms that the interim judge may conduct a preliminary, non‑decisive review of the substantive right to justify a provisional measure. This content is an educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The decision addresses legal points on the jurisdiction of the summary/interim judge in cases of repossession requests within financial leasing. It notes that urgent matters are examined diligently under Article 33(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, and that an appellate court that annuls an urgent order need not remand the request to the interim judge but may decide the matter itself.
Summary?
Article 4 of the Financial Leasing Law indicates a contract qualifies as a financial lease when two conditions are met: the lessor acquires the asset from a supplier with the aim of leasing it under a financial lease contract, and the lessor obliges to enable the lessee to use the asset in return for rent. Under Article 22, a financial lessor may apply to the summary/interim judge to recover the asset if the contract is a financial lease and the lessee refuses to return the asset at the end of the lease term or fails to pay due rental installments. Such an application is an urgent request governed by the provisions on urgent requests, requiring both urgency and preservation of the underlying right for the interim judge to exercise jurisdiction.
Practical significance?
The decision emphasizes that urgent relief is meant to be a temporary measure protecting the party most entitled until the substantive court rules, without deciding the main dispute. It also confirms that the interim judge may conduct a preliminary, non‑decisive review of the substantive right to justify a provisional measure. This content is an educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Work and employment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Legal consultation and studies
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.