The facts of the case can be summarized as follows: On 1439/5/6 AH, (...) ID number (...) filed an objection with the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh against the ruling of the Fourth Administrative Circuit of the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh issued in the session of 1439/4/2 AH, in his capacity as agent for (...) the agent for (...) pursuant to the attached powers of attorney copies. The objection included that the challenged judgment ruled lack of territorial jurisdiction to consider the lawsuit filed by the club against the company (...) related to a contract for marketing media services; and based on the text of Article (197) of the Law of Civil Procedure, the Equestrian Club is a governmental administrative entity supervised and supported by the state, thus it is a governmental entity and cases filed by or against the club fall under the jurisdiction of the administrative court. As for the subject-matter jurisdiction regarding horse racing competitions and equestrian issues, a higher authority within the club is responsible for resolving them. The case under consideration is an administrative agreement for marketing and media services. The request to revoke the judgment concluding lack of jurisdiction is based on reasons including that the consideration of cases filed by or against the club was settled by a decision of the Supreme Judicial Council based on a jurisdictional conflict lawsuit filed by (...) against the club, which ruled that the administrative court has territorial jurisdiction to consider cases filed by or against the club. Also, the club is a governmental entity as the government sponsors it and appoints its director through the Prime Minister. The phrase "sponsored by the state" in the club’s basic statute encompasses all the club’s activities, and sponsorship is the same as corollary. Furthermore, the Board of Grievances’ involvement with state institutions, its attendance at all sessions through its representative, and submission of memoranda supporting the club clearly confirm that the club is an administrative entity affiliated with the state in all its affairs. The representative of the oversight authority stated in the memorandum submitted during his intervention that the Equestrian Club represents the state pursuant to Article (74) of the Basic Law of Governance, and that jurisdiction is vested in the administrative court pursuant to Article (13) of the Law of the Board of Grievances since the dispute is between two parties, one of which is the administration. It is also confirmed that the club is a governmental entity by the approval of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques to the honorary presidency of the club and his order to disburse 25 million riyals as support to the club. The administrative court ignored all these documents and evidence, and the Court of Appeal upheld its ruling. The first instance circuit took more than a full year to consider the case due to its need for further evidence to prove jurisdiction, but the newly formed circuit issued its ruling in one day without referring back to the parties, despite the defendant’s objection to territorial jurisdiction and no objection to the subject-matter jurisdiction. The objector’s agent concluded his objection by stating that his client’s lawsuit against the defendant is purely administrative since the contract in question is an administrative contract, not a commercial contract, requesting the revocation of the judgment and ruling in favor of the club on its claims against the defendant. Upon referral of the papers to this court, it was registered under number (102) dated 1439/5/8 AH, and the objected party was notified of the objection by the Board’s letter number (104379/39/6/39) dated 1439/6/12 AH but did not respond to the objection. The objector had filed a lawsuit against the mentioned company before the administrative court registered under number (1/5625/Q) for the year 1437 AH, which was referred to the Sixth Administrative Circuit that ruled in its judgment on session 1438/12/2 AH lack of territorial jurisdiction of the administrative courts to consider the case. The plaintiff-objector’s overall claim was that the Equestrian Club in Riyadh contracted with the defendant on 1431/6/18 AH for the defendant to take commercial rights in horse racing events from the contract signing date for five years. The defendant committed to pay the club an annual amount of ten million riyals and to undertake all advertising and media activities for the contract period. After signing the contract and receiving the site, the defendant did not pay the amounts due to the club. Then a dispute arose between them over the amount due for each year, and they agreed to reduce it for the first three years only to five million riyals. An annex to the contract was signed with the defendant to settle the dispute, but the defendant did not fulfill her contractual obligations under the contract and the signed annex, concluding her list by requesting the defendant be obligated to pay the amount due of fifteen million riyals. After hearing the parties, the circuit issued its ruling of lack of territorial jurisdiction based on reasons that the plaintiff’s ultimate aim in filing the lawsuit is to obtain a judgment obligating the defendant company (...) to pay him fifteen million riyals, which is a financial entitlement owed to the club by the defendant under the contract between them. The circuit must first examine the issue of territorial jurisdiction before entering the subject matter of the case as it is a preliminary matter that the circuit must consider ex officio even if not raised by the parties as it is a matter of public order. The Equestrian Club Law in its first chapter defines the Equestrian Club as: The Equestrian Club in Riyadh is a sports, cultural, and social institution of public benefit sponsored by the state and subject to applicable laws and regulations. The Council of Ministers’ decision number (30) dated 1416/2/12 AH established a Higher Authority for Equestrian Clubs, and the regulation of the Higher Authority for Equestrian Clubs in its Article Three provides that: "The Higher Authority is competent to establish equestrian clubs, approve their financial and administrative regulations, and supervise their management..." Article (6) provides that: "The funds and revenues of the Higher Authority consist of: 1- Subsidies, donations, and grants. 2- A percentage of the revenues of each equestrian club..." This shows that the Equestrian Club in Riyadh is a non-profit institution concerned with sports, cultural, and social matters and is a public benefit association sponsored by the state and subject to applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Equestrian Club in Riyadh is a non-profit charitable entity and considered a public benefit association, not a governmental entity. The jurisdiction of the administrative courts at the Board of Grievances regarding lawsuits of public benefit associations is limited to administrative decisions issued by them only, according to the text of paragraph (B) of Article Thirteen which states: "B- Lawsuits to annul final administrative decisions submitted by interested parties, whenever the appeal is based on lack of jurisdiction, procedural defect, defect in reason, violation of laws and regulations, error in application or interpretation, or abuse of power, including disciplinary decisions, decisions issued by quasi-judicial committees and disciplinary councils, and decisions issued by public benefit associations - or similar - related to their activities." Since the Equestrian Club in Riyadh contracted with the defendant and demands obligating her to pay fifteen million riyals, which is the amount due to the plaintiff and the remainder of the contract value, his request is thus outside the jurisdiction of the administrative courts at the Board of Grievances territorially under its system because it is a contract, and this contract was concluded by a public benefit association. Upon the plaintiff’s request to appeal the judgment, the case was referred to the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh and registered under number (687/Q) for the year 1439 AH, considered by the Fourth Administrative Circuit, which issued in its session of 1439/4/2 AH the judgment subject to the objector’s objection affirming the ruling of the Sixth Administrative Circuit of the Administrative Court in Riyadh.

Whereas the contestation has fulfilled all its procedural conditions as the judgment was issued on 2/4/1439 AH and the delivery date was set on 23/4/1439 AH, and the plaintiff submitted his objection on 6/5/1439 AH; thus, it was submitted within the statutory deadline. And since the plaintiff, by proxy, bases his objection on the judgment's violation of the law, and this reason is among the grounds that permit objection before the court administrative High according to Article Eleven of the Law of the Board of Grievances, and since the judgment under objection relied in its ruling on the reasons of the Sixth Administrative Circuit judgment, whose conclusion is that the issue of jurisdiction is of public order and may be raised at any stage of the judiciary, and the circuit may examine it ex officio even if the parties to the case do not raise it; and because the Equestrian Club Law stipulates in its first chapter the definition of the Equestrian Club as a sports, cultural, and social institution of public benefit sponsored by the state and subject to the applicable laws and regulations. Article Thirteen of the Law of the Board of Grievances states the jurisdiction of the Board, especially paragraph (b) thereof, which provides for its jurisdiction over: "the annulment of final decisions submitted by concerned parties whenever the appeal reference is..., and the decisions issued by public benefit associations and their equivalents related to their activities." And since the dispute, as mentioned in the facts, relates to a contractual dispute, it falls outside the scope of that provision; considering that Article (13/b) is specific to the annulment of decisions issued by public benefit associations, whereas the dispute is contractual, and the contract concluded with any of the public associations is not an administrative contract subject to the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. Therefore, the correctness and soundness of the judgment under objection in its conclusion that the courts of the Board of Grievances do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute related to the contract concluded between the Equestrian Club in Riyadh and the company (...), which necessitates rejecting the objection of the Equestrian Club in Riyadh to the judgment of the Fourth Administrative Circuit of the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh, which affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Administrative Circuit of the Administrative Court in Riyadh. Accordingly, the court ruled: to accept the objection of the Equestrian Club in Riyadh formally, and reject it substantively. And God is the grantor of success, and may peace and blessings be upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions all.