Supreme Administrative Court: The case was accepted after the mandatory appeal process was completed
The Supreme Administrative Court has established an important legal principle upholding the rights of litigants, ruling that administrative cases may be reheard after fulfilling the requirement of a "mandatory appeal," even if the court had previously dismissed the same case for failure to submit such an appeal the first time. This decision resolves a legal debate regarding whether an initial procedural dismissal precludes the case from being heard subsequently.
Details of the incident and circumstances
The case that established this principle dates back to an academic employee filing a lawsuit before the Administrative Court seeking to overturn an administrative decision to dismiss him from his job. The Court of First Instance subsequently ruled the case inadmissible on procedural grounds, based on the fact that the plaintiff had not submitted the mandatory grievance to the administrative body before resorting to the courts—a fundamental requirement in the procedures before the Board of Grievances for certain types of lawsuits.
In compliance with regulations, the plaintiff submitted his grievance to the administrative body, and after completing this procedure, he refiled his case before the court. However, he was surprised to receive a ruling stating that "the case is inadmissible due to prior adjudication," which prompted him to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court.
Legal principle: The difference between formal and substantive rejection
In its landmark ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the contested judgment, clarifying a fundamental difference in jurisprudence and administrative law. The court affirmed that the previous ruling dismissing the case for lack of a formal appeal was a procedural matter, pertaining to form, and did not constitute a decision on the merits of the dispute or the claimed right.
Accordingly, if the plaintiff fulfills the condition of the grievance later, the procedural impediment is removed, and the new lawsuit becomes formally acceptable, and the plea of prior adjudication is not valid, because the court did not have its say on the “right” itself the first time, but rather stopped at the formal procedures.
The importance of mandatory grievance in the Saudi system
Mandatory appeal is a preliminary stage before litigation, designed to give the administrative body an opportunity to review its decisions and correct potential errors amicably, without the need to burden the courts. Saudi law requires this procedure in specific cases, such as those seeking the annulment of administrative decisions related to civil service and retirement matters.
This new principle reflects the Board of Grievances’ to ensure that formal procedures do not hinder rights holders’ access to justice, thus strengthening the guarantees of litigation in the Kingdom.
The development of administrative justice and keeping pace with the vision
This ruling comes within the context of a qualitative development witnessed by the administrative judiciary in Saudi Arabia, in line with the objectives of the Kingdom's Vision 2030 to enhance transparency and efficient justice. The Board of Grievances is experiencing significant progress, not only in terms of judicial principles but also through a comprehensive digital transformation via the "Moeen" platform, and the publication of judicial codes that contribute to unifying legal interpretations and raising awareness among specialists and litigants about the correct legal procedures.
