A new legal principle enhances access to justice
In a significant legal step aimed at strengthening the principles of justice and protecting the right to litigation, the Supreme Administrative Court in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia established a new legal principle clarifying the mechanism for handling administrative cases filed without fulfilling the requirement of “mandatory appeal.” According to this principle, a ruling dismissing a case on a procedural ground—namely, the failure to first submit an appeal to the administrative body—does not preclude refiling the case and reconsidering it once this procedural requirement is met.
General context: Administrative justice and the importance of mandatory appeals
The administrative judiciary in the Kingdom, represented by the Board of Grievances and its courts, is responsible for adjudicating disputes in which a government entity is a party. Mandatory grievance is a fundamental procedure in many of these disputes, as the law requires the plaintiff to submit a grievance to the administrative body that issued the decision before resorting to the courts. The purpose of this procedure is to give the administrative body an opportunity to review and correct its decision if it is erroneous, which may resolve the dispute amicably and save time and effort for the parties involved and the courts.
Historically, there has been confusion in some judicial circles regarding the fate of a case dismissed for failing to meet this condition. Some believed that a ruling of inadmissibility acquired the force of res judicata, preventing the plaintiff from refiling their case even if they subsequently filed an appeal. This effectively closed the door to litigation for many due to a procedural error that could have been rectified.
Details of the principle and its expected impact
The new principle clarified this ambiguity, emphasizing that a ruling of inadmissibility due to the absence of an appeal is a procedural matter pertaining to the acceptance of the case, and not a decision on its merits or the rights and obligations of the parties. Therefore, the rule of "subsequent adjudication" does not apply.
The Supreme Administrative Court clarified that a subsequent lawsuit filed after the appeal process has been completed fulfills one of its essential requirements, and is therefore presented to the court in its entirety for the first time for consideration of its merits. This interpretation ensures that a litigant is not deprived of their right to have their case heard by the judiciary due to a procedural defect that has since been rectified.
This principle is expected to have a significant positive impact on the Kingdom's administrative justice system. Domestically, it will standardize procedures across various administrative courts, ensuring that citizens and residents' rights are not lost due to procedural irregularities. Furthermore, it enhances confidence in the judicial system by balancing the importance of procedural formalities with the protection of substantive rights, aligning with the goals of the Kingdom's Vision 2030 to develop a more efficient and equitable legislative and judicial environment.
