A private complaint about the approval of a settlement agreement between and the termination of the proceedings, referring the issue for a new hearing to the court of first instance
To the Judicial Panel for Civil Casesof the Zhambyl Regional Court
From the Defendant: S.E.D.
IIN: ….
Representative under a Power of Attorney:
Law Firm “Zakon i Pravo”BIN 201240021767Office 304, 79 Abylai Khan Avenue, Almaty
info@zakonpravo.kz / www.zakonpravo.kz
+7 708 971 78 58; +7 727 971 78 58
PRIVATE COMPLAINT
against the Ruling of the Taraz City Court of the Zhambyl Region dated 12 August 2026
On 12 August 2026, the Taraz City Court of the Zhambyl Region, in civil case No. 3110-26-00-2/5699 concerning the claim of L.A.S. against S.E.D. for recovery of indebtedness, issued a ruling approving a settlement agreement and terminating the proceedings.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement approved by the court, the Plaintiff waived the claims, while S.E.D. undertook to pay L.A.S. indebtedness in the amount of KZT 31,600,000 in eight instalments of KZT 3,950,000 each.
The Defendant considers the said ruling subject to reversal, since, at the time of approval of the settlement agreement, the court was not aware of material circumstances concerning the origin and nature of the disputed obligation, while, according to S.E.D., his expression of will to assume the relevant obligations was formed under pressure exerted by the Plaintiff.
The initial claim of L.A.S. was based on a promissory note dated 1 March 2026. In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff alleged that on 1 March 2026 an independent loan agreement had been concluded between him and S.E.D., pursuant to which the Plaintiff allegedly provided the Defendant with cash in the amount of KZT 55,000,000. It was precisely on the basis of this allegation that L.A.S. sought recovery from the Defendant of the remaining indebtedness in the amount of KZT 28,850,000.
However, the circumstances stated in the statement of claim do not correspond to the actual nature of the legal relationship between the parties.
No separate loan agreement was in fact concluded between L.A.S. and S.E.D. on 1 March 2026, nor did L.A.S. separately transfer KZT 55,000,000 to S.E.D. as a loan.
The actual legal relationship between the parties arose in connection with the acquisition of a motor vehicle.
On 2 March 2026, Agreement No. 214 for the provision of services for the search for and selection of a motor vehicle, as well as assistance with its acquisition and registration, was concluded. The subject matter of the agreement was the acquisition for L.A.S. of a 2022 Porsche 911 Turbo S vehicle at a price of USD 210,000. The agreement identified Individual Entrepreneur “B E” as the Agent and was signed by S.E.D. with the seal of the individual entrepreneur affixed thereto.
It was within the framework of performance of this agreement that L.A.S. transferred USD 210,000 for the acquisition of the vehicle.
Subsequently, it became impossible to fulfil the obligation to purchase and deliver the vehicle within the stipulated period because the persons located in the Republic of Korea, to whom the funds had been transferred for the purchase of the vehicle, failed to fulfil their obligations in a timely manner.
Following the occurrence of this situation, L.A.S. began demanding the return of the funds and, according to S.E.D., exerted psychological pressure on him, threatening to contact law enforcement authorities, initiate criminal proceedings on the grounds of fraud, and have S.E.D. prosecuted.
Under the circumstances of such pressure, S.E.D. effectively prepared a promissory note on 27 July 2026, in which, at the request of L.A.S., a different date — 1 March 2026 — was stated, and the obligation arising from Agreement No. 214 was documented as though S.E.D. had received a separate loan from L.A.S. in the amount of KZT 55,000,000.
The promissory note indeed states that S.E.D. allegedly received KZT 55,000,000 in cash from L.A.S. on 1 March 2026 as a loan and undertook to repay the said amount no later than 17 July 2026.
However, the separate transfer of the said amount on 1 March 2026 did not in fact take place.
Furthermore, a similar promissory note was executed by the wife of S.E.D., A.N. Kudaibergenova, stating that she had allegedly received KZT 50,000,000 from L.A.S. as a separate loan.
At the same time, A.N. Kudaibergenova was not a party to Agreement No. 214, and, according to the Defendant, L.A.S. did not separately transfer KZT 50,000,000 to her either.
Thus, the two promissory notes were prepared in such a manner as to indicate that L.A.S. had separately provided S.E.D. with KZT 55,000,000 and K.A.N. with an additional KZT 50,000,000 as two separate loans.
After the promissory notes were executed, L.A.S. filed a claim with the court, presenting the legal relationship with S.E.D. precisely as an independent loan relationship, while failing to disclose in the statement of claim Agreement No. 214, the transfer of USD 210,000 for the acquisition of the vehicle, and the actual connection between the promissory note and the said legal relationship. The initial statement of claim clearly indicates that the sole basis of the claim was alleged loan indebtedness in the amount of KZT 55,000,000.
Subsequently, according to S.E.D., the pressure exerted upon him continued. L.A.S. continued to refer to the possibility of contacting law enforcement authorities and having the Defendant prosecuted for fraud.
Fearing the relevant consequences and lacking sufficient legal knowledge to assess the legal nature of the original agreement, the promissory note, and the consequences of entering into the settlement agreement, S.E.D. agreed to conclude the settlement agreement.
At the same time, the court's ruling merely states that, as a result of the reconciliation procedures, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, requested its approval, and that the terms of the agreement had been agreed upon by the parties. The court relied upon the documents submitted by the parties and had no information concerning the actual circumstances in which the promissory note had been executed, its connection with Agreement No. 214, or the circumstances under which the Defendant agreed to enter into the settlement agreement.
Subsequently, L.A.S. filed a new statement of claim, the contents of which are of material importance for assessing the original dispute.
In the new statement of claim, L.A.S. expressly states that the USD 210,000 was transferred exclusively in connection with the performance of Agreement No. 214 and was intended for the purchase of the vehicle, and further alleges that S.E.D. personally received the said funds in connection with the performance of the agreement.
Thus, L.A.S. now himself associates the transfer of the funds to S.E.D. with the performance of Agreement No. 214, whereas, when filing the original claim, he alleged the existence of a separate loan in the amount of KZT 55,000,000.
Furthermore, on 29 July 2026, S.E.D. returned USD 110,000 in cash to L.A.S. L.A.S., according to the Defendant, confirmed receipt of the funds in correspondence via the WhatsApp messenger.
The said correspondence is subject to submission and examination by the court, as it is relevant to establishing the actual amount and nature of the obligations between the parties.
Nevertheless, in the new statement of claim, L.A.S. again seeks recovery of USD 110,000 and alleges that the funds were not returned to him. It is precisely USD 110,000, converted by the Plaintiff into KZT 50,256,800, that is claimed as the principal debt.
These circumstances demonstrate the necessity of examining the entirety of the legal relationship between the parties, since the original claim for recovery of an alleged separate loan, the settlement agreement concluded in the present case, and the new claim arising from Agreement No. 214 are, in fact, connected with the same funds and the same legal relationship arising in connection with the acquisition of the vehicle.
After obtaining legal assistance and establishing the legal significance of the actions taken against him, S.E.D. filed a statement with the police concerning the pressure exerted upon him and his wife and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the promissory notes. He requested that a pre-trial investigation be conducted and that the actions of L.A.S. be given an appropriate criminal-law assessment.
The fact of filing a statement with the police does not, in itself, predetermine whether the actions of L.A.S. contain the elements of a criminal offence. However, it confirms that S.E.D. officially reported the relevant circumstances to the competent authority and requested that they be investigated.
Pursuant to Article 176(1) of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (the “CPC”), a settlement agreement shall be concluded in writing and signed by the parties or their representatives possessing specifically granted authority to do so. Within the meaning of Articles 175–177 of the CPC, a settlement agreement constitutes the result of the parties' mutually agreed expression of will and is approved by the court provided that the statutory requirements are complied with.
In the present case, there are circumstances casting doubt on the voluntary nature of the Defendant's expression of will in assuming the obligation to pay KZT 31,600,000, since S.E.D. states that he was subjected to prior and continuing pressure involving threats of criminal prosecution, while the settlement agreement itself was based on a disputed obligation presented by the Plaintiff as an independent loan.
Under such circumstances, maintaining in force the ruling imposing upon S.E.D. an obligation to pay KZT 31,600,000 under the settlement agreement, without examining the true nature of the original obligation and the circumstances in which the Defendant's expression of will was formed, materially affects his property rights and legitimate interests.
Part 7 of Article 177 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan expressly provides for the right to file a private complaint against a ruling approving a settlement agreement.
Pursuant to Part 6 of Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, following consideration of a private complaint, the appellate court may reverse the ruling in whole or in part and remit the matter for a new hearing by the court of first instance, or resolve the relevant matter on the merits.
Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Articles 175–177 and 427 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I HEREBY REQUEST THE COURT TO:
- Reverse the ruling of the Taraz City Court of the Zhambyl Region dated 12 August 2026 in civil case No. 3110-26-00-2/5699 approving the settlement agreement between L.A.S. and S.E.D. and terminating the proceedings, and remit the matter for a new hearing by the court of first instance.
Respectfully,
Representative under the Power of Attorney: I.M. Kenesbek
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
