Kazakhstan Court Upholds Debt Collection of 135.6M Tenge

In Shymkent, a limited liability partnership (LLP) attempted to challenge a notary's executive endorsement for the collection of 135.6 million tenge, but the cassation court has put an end to the matter, reports infohub.kz.

As reported in the Telegram channel "Actual News of Cassation Courts," the cassation court for civil cases reviewed a dispute between the LLP and a Shymkent notary regarding the legality of the executive endorsement for debt collection in favor of another LLP.

On October 2, 2025, the notary issued an executive endorsement to collect a debt of 135,602,820 tenge from the LLP. The basis was a supply contract, a delivery note, and a reconciliation statement signed by both parties.

The LLP appealed the notary's actions, arguing that the debt was disputed and that the executive endorsement was made in violation of territoriality rules.

The court of first instance dismissed the complaint. The appellate court upheld the decision. In the cassation appeal, the applicant sought to overturn the court rulings, citing a dispute over the quantity of delivered goods and the notary's violation of territoriality.

The cassation court agreed with the lower courts' conclusions and upheld the judicial acts.

The cassation court noted that the documents provided to the notary confirmed the indisputability of the debt. In particular, the reconciliation statement and the delivery note were signed by the LLP's director using an electronic digital signature, which by law is equivalent to a handwritten signature. Additionally, the LLP sent a guarantee letter committing to fully repay the debt for the delivered goods by October 31, 2025.

The arguments about a dispute over the quantity of delivered goods were not supported by proper evidence. No violation of territoriality was found either: the contract was concluded in Shymkent, where the LLP's permanent governing body was located during the contract's execution.

Thus, no grounds were found to consider the notary's actions unlawful. The decision of the inter-district civil court of November 26, 2025, and the ruling of the judicial panel for civil cases of February 18, 2026, were left unchanged, and the cassation appeal was dismissed.