Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 236

Summary: - The principle of the binding force of judicial judgments. One of the fundamental principles underpinning the judicial system. Its basis is the presumption of correctness of judicial judgments. It is not regarded as an absolute presumption. Its purpose: the proper administration of justice, preventing the perpetuation of litigation, and avoiding conflicting judicial judgments that undermine confidence in judicial rulings. Its effect: no new ruling may be issued contrary to a prior ruling that has acquired the force of res judicata concerning the same right and between the same parties. In implementation of this and to prevent contravention, the legislature permitted a cassation appeal against any final judgment, regardless of the court that issued it, if issued contrary to the binding force of a prior judgment. Article 152 of the Procedure Law. Its consequence: the legislature denies any court the authority to rehear a dispute in which a prior judgment having the force of res judicata has been rendered. This relates to public policy. Contravention entails: the judgment lacks one of its fundamental elements, consisting in its issuance in litigation by a judge having jurisdiction to decide litigation complete in its constituent elements as to parties, subject matter, and cause, and reduces it to non-existence. - Contradiction between two judgments and submission of the dispute to another judge. He must adhere to the binding force of the first judgment and disregard the subsequent judgment, without addressing the merits of the dispute anew (*). Rule: The principle of the binding force of judicial judgments is one of the fundamental principles underpinning the judicial system. The legislature has been keen to adhere to this principle, whose basis is the presumption of correctness of judicial judgments. It is not an absolute presumption—how much the judiciary lacks infallibility—but the legislature made it unrestricted in the interests of the proper administration of justice, to prevent the perpetuation of litigation, and to avoid conflicting judicial judgments that undermine public confidence in judicial rulings. To that end, and in recognition thereof, the legislature, in Article (53) of the Law of Evidence, barred the issuance of a new ruling contrary to a prior 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 force of a prior judgment from becoming established, by permitting, in Article (152) of the Procedure Law, a cassation appeal on that ground against any final judgment, regardless of the court that issued it. This means that the issuance of a prior final judgment having the force of res judicata results in denying any court thereafter the authority to rehear the dispute, because this relates to public policy. If the court exceeds the limits of its authority, proceeds to hear the dispute, and rules on it contrary to the prior judgment, its judgment is issued in litigation whose subject matter and cause have ceased to exist, thereby lacking one of the fundamental elements consisting in its issuance by a judge having jurisdiction to decide litigation complete in its constituent elements as to parties, subject matter, and cause in accordance with the law. This strips it of the elements of its validity, deprives it of its existence and character as a judgment, destroys its immunity, and reduces it to the degree of non-existence. If this results in two contradictory judgments and the dispute is submitted for a third time to another judge, he may not—to prevent the perpetuation of litigation—proceed to decide the dispute anew. Rather, he must enforce the first judgment alone, adhere to its binding force, and disregard the subsequent one.