The cases are distributed among the court divisions equally as soon as they are registered to the relevant division for adjudication based on their subject matter.

Taking into account what is included in (Rule Four) of the regulations governing the jurisdictions and powers of court presidents and their assistants, the referral shall be suspended by a decision from the president of the court of the judicial circuit if there is a similar one from the circuits according to the following cases:
Case One: Suspension of referral from the criminal circuit formed by a single judge during his leave or assignment outside the court for a period exceeding five days.
Case Two: Suspension of referral of termination requests, or urgent lawsuits not related to a pending case, to the circuits formed by a single judge during his leave or assignment outside the court for a period exceeding five days.
Case Three: Suspension of referral of new lawsuits to the circuit formed by a single judge if the duration of the leave or assignment exceeds thirty days, taking into account that the suspension of referral - in this case - is limited to the period exceeding thirty days.

Without prejudice to equality between similar circuits, if the court receives cases that are similar in their subject and filed against the same defendant, and the Chief Justice sees fit to refer them to the circuit to which the first case was referred, he shall refer them and immediately notify the Council of that.

The chamber shall, on its own accord, verify the preliminary matters related to jurisdiction and the conditions for accepting the lawsuit during the first hearing, and the verification shall be recorded in the minutes of the proceedings.

• 1. If the panel deems the referral of the case to it incorrect, it shall return it to the Chief Judge with a reasoned decision recorded in the minutes before the date of the first scheduled hearing for the case or urgent claim, and the Chief Judge may decide to return the case to the panel for consideration, or return it to the competent section for redistribution.

• 2. If the panel to which the case is referred after redistribution deems the referral incorrect, it shall return it to the Chief Judge with a reasoned decision recorded in the minutes within a period not exceeding five working days from the date it was received by the panel.

• 3. If the period specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) passes without the panel returning the case, or if the panel takes any judicial action in the case, or if the case is returned to it based on a decision from the Chief Judge, the panel is obliged to consider and adjudicate it even if it does not conform to the internal distribution rules, and it shall adjudicate the case according to the established judicial principles therein.

• The provisions of Rule Five do not apply to criminal cases that are heard by more than one judge unless the other panel has the required quorum to consider the case.

The President of the Council shall issue a mechanism for organizing the study and consideration of cases among the judges of the same circuit.

1. The Court shall provide the Judicial Inspection Department every three months with a statement that includes the judgments issued in preliminary matters, and the decisions issued based on these rules, including the date the case was received by the circuit and the date of the judgment or decision.
2. The Court shall provide the Ministry's Agency for Judicial Affairs every three months with a statement that includes the cases that have been redistributed and the employee responsible for that.

• Praise be to God alone, and peace and blessings be upon the one after whom there is no prophet. To proceed:-

• The Law of the Judiciary includes the arrangement of the courts of general jurisdiction and their divisions, as it includes Article Nine which defines the courts of first instance and regulates the establishment of new courts, as detailed in the provisions of Chapter Two of Title One of the Civil Procedures Law, and the Law of the Judiciary also includes the organization of the composition of divisions within a single court and their allocation, whether concerning the courts of appeal as stipulated in the provisions of Chapter Two of Title One of the Law of the Judiciary or the courts of first instance as stipulated in the provisions of Chapter Three of the same title.

• It has been customary to refer to the distribution of cases among the various courts under the same judicial authority based on the type of case as (Subject Jurisdiction), and its application is limited to the courts within the same judicial authority, and it does not relate in any way to the distribution of cases among the divisions of a single court; the Supreme Judicial Council clarified in its decision No. (39/6/221) dated 29/4/1439 AH that: "Subject jurisdiction according to the regulatory texts governing it is established for the court as a whole, and no division within the court has a specific subject jurisdiction, as the purpose of the Council's designation of divisions within a single court is merely an internal organizational distribution aimed at expediting the litigation process and facilitating its procedures in cases of a specific type, and a violation of this does not result in the application of the provisions related to subject jurisdiction."

• The regulatory texts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and in comparative laws clearly establish this principle, as in Chapter Two of Title Two of the Civil Procedures Law titled (Subject Jurisdiction): its provisions are limited to the courts, not the divisions, and the effect of violating the rules of jurisdiction – as it is a defense related to public order – pertains to the courts and the competition between them, not the divisions within a single court, as stated in Article (76) of the Civil Procedures Law, which stipulates that: "The defense of the court's lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of its authority or due to the type of case or its value, or the defense of the inadmissibility of the case due to the lack of capacity or standing or interest or for any other reason, as well as the defense of the inadmissibility of the case due to prior adjudication; may be raised at any stage of the case and the court shall rule on it ex officio." It is clear that the article addresses the defense of the court's lack of jurisdiction, not the division, as well as what is mentioned in Article (75) regarding the referral of the case to another court, and Article (78) of the Civil Procedures Law states that: "With due regard to Article (178) of this Law, if the court rules that it lacks jurisdiction and the judgment becomes final, it must refer the case to the competent court and inform the parties thereof." Thus, the legislator's emphasis here is on the court, not the division, and the executive regulations of Article (78) of the Civil Procedures Law were amended by the decision of the Minister of Justice No. (421) dated 12/2/1439 AH; according to this explicit concept.

• Since the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court is limited to reviewing judicial acts (judgments and decisions) in form and substance, and the distribution of cases is a matter of judicial administration and internal referral, it does not represent a judicial act subject to the oversight of a higher court, as the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is to review the judgments of the first instance court if a judgment of lack of jurisdiction is issued and the competent court is designated according to Article (78) and Article (192) of the Civil Procedures Law, and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is to designate the competent court in case of conflict between two courts according to the executive regulation (1/78/b) of the Civil Procedures Law, and this does not include whether the conflict is between divisions of one court as long as the case falls within the jurisdiction of the same court, whether the review is ex officio or raised by the party contesting the judgment, which was confirmed by the aforementioned Council decision, which stated in item two that: "The violation of distribution rules or errors in their application shall not be subject to review by a higher court, as long as the case falls within the jurisdiction of the same court."

• From the above, the following can be concluded:

  • 1- That the judgment of lack of subject jurisdiction and the judgments related to the defense of judicial referral mentioned in Article seventy-five pertain to the courts, not the divisions of the same court.

  • 2- That the distribution of cases among the divisions of the same court based on type, value, or the number considered for the case (non-criminal) is merely an internal administrative organizational distribution, and a violation of it does not result in the application of the provisions related to subject jurisdiction.

  • 3- That the distribution of cases among the divisions within a single court is a form of internal referral and judicial administration, and does not represent a judicial act, as it suffices to record the referral document in the session minutes without notifying the parties, and the case is referred without the need to issue a decision in the usual form of judicial judgments.

  • 4- That the division's consideration of the case in violation of the internal distribution rules within the same court does not result in nullity and is not subject to objection; as this division is one of the divisions of the court competent to consider the case.

• If it is determined that the distribution of cases among the divisions of the same court is outside the provisions and rules of subject jurisdiction, then addressing any violations of those distribution rules shall be as follows:

  • 1- If a case is referred – initially – in violation of the internal distribution rules; the division must decide to refer it to the division concerned with its consideration according to those rules, and the head of the court may decide to return it to that division or refer it to the administration for redistribution.

  • 2- The division to which the case has been redistributed, if it finds the referral to it incorrect, may return it to the head of the court within the time specified in the rules by a decision recorded in the minutes for the head of the court.

  • 3- The head of the court shall decide on the competition between the divisions of the court, and his decision in this regard shall be binding according to what is stipulated in Article (2/78) added by the decision of the Minister of Justice No. (421) dated 12/2/1439 AH.

  • 4- Upon the expiration of the time specified in the rules or the division taking a judicial action in the case or the head of the court deciding to return it to the division, the division must consider it and rule on it according to the established principle therein; if the case is, for example, a dispute regarding the custody of a minor and is to be considered by the family law divisions, and its distribution has been established to a partial division, for example, it should be considered according to the established principles in family law, and so on, as it is considered to be subject matter jurisdiction in that court.

• The rules have confirmed that the distribution of cases to the divisions of the same court should be immediately to the division concerned with its judicial consideration, according to the principle of equality among similar divisions.

• The second rule has also clarified the cases of suspension of referral from the judicial division in an exhaustive manner by a decision from the head of the court if there are similar divisions in the same court.

• To expedite the resolution of cases and their adjudication, the third rule has addressed special referrals in cases where similar cases, such as investment cases, are brought before the court, and the head of the court wishes to consolidate them in one division; the rule permits this under two conditions:

  • 1- That the cases are similar in subject matter and unified in the defendant.

  • 2- That the consolidation of the referral is exclusively to the division to which the first case was referred.

• The head of the court shall immediately inform the council of this, based on his supervision of the regular conduct of the courts' work.

• The rules also require that the division concerned with the case, in the first session – ex officio – verify the preliminary matters related to jurisdiction and the conditions for accepting the case and that this be recorded in the minutes.

• The rules have indicated that the provisions of the fifth rule do not apply to criminal cases that are considered by more than one judge due to the violation of the formation being one of the grounds for nullity according to Article (188) of the Criminal Procedure Law, unless the other division has the required quorum to consider the case, in which case the fifth rule applies as the necessity ceases.

• And God is the Grantor of success, and peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and companions altogether.