Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 14

Summary: - The principle of the binding authority of judicial judgments. One of the fundamental principles upon which the judicial system is based. Its foundation is the presumption of correctness of judicial judgments. It is not considered an inevitable presumption. Its purpose. The proper administration of justice, prevention of perpetual litigation, and avoidance of conflicting judicial judgments in a manner that undermines confidence in judicial rulings. Its effect. No new ruling may be issued contrary to an earlier ruling that has acquired the force of res judicata concerning the same right and between the same parties. To implement this and prevent contravention, the legislature permitted an appeal by cassation against any final judgment, regardless of the court that issued it, if issued contrary to the binding authority of an earlier judgment. Article 152 of the Procedure Law. Its implication. The legislature denies any court the power to reconsider a dispute in which an earlier judgment having the force of res judicata has been issued. This concerns public policy. The implication of contravening this: the judgment lacks one of the fundamental elements consisting in its issuance in litigation by a judge having jurisdiction to adjudicate litigation complete in its constituent elements as to parties, subject matter and cause, and is reduced to nonexistence. - Conflict between two judgments and submission of the dispute to another judge. That judge must abide by the binding authority of the first judgment and disregard the subsequent judgment, without addressing the merits of the dispute anew (*). Rule: The principle of the binding authority of judicial judgments is one of the fundamental principles upon which the judicial system is based. The legislature has been careful to adhere to this principle, which rests upon the presumption of correctness of judicial judgments. This is not an inevitable presumption—how greatly the judiciary lacks infallibility—but the legislature established it in the interests of the proper administration of justice, to prevent perpetual litigation, and to avoid conflicting judicial judgments in a manner that undermines public confidence in judicial rulings. To that end and in recognition thereof, the legislature, in Article (53) of the Evidence Law, precluded the issuance of a new ruling contrary to an earlier ruling that has acquired the force of res judicata concerning the same right and between the same parties. It also sought to prevent any new ruling issued contrary to the binding authority of an earlier judgment from becoming settled, by permitting, in Article (152) of the Procedure Law, an appeal by cassation on this ground against any final judgment, regardless of the court that issued it. This means that issuance of an earlier final judgment having the force of res judicata entails denying any court thereafter the power to reconsider the dispute, because this concerns public policy. If the court exceeds the limits of its power, undertakes consideration of the dispute and rules upon it contrary to the earlier judgment, its judgment will have been issued in litigation whose subject matter and cause have ceased to exist, thus lacking one of the fundamental elements consisting in its issuance by a judge having jurisdiction to adjudicate litigation complete in its constituent elements as to parties, subject matter and cause in accordance with the law. This strips it of the requisites of its validity, deprives it of its existence and character as a judgment, destroys its immunity and reduces it to the degree of nonexistence. If this results in a conflict between two judgments and the dispute is submitted for a third time to another judge, that judge may not—in order to prevent perpetual litigation—undertake to adjudicate the dispute anew, but must instead enforce the first judgment alone, abide by its binding authority and disregard the subsequent one.