The facts, as shown by the challenged judgment, the objection submitted against it, and the objection file, can be summarized as follows: The agent of (...) previously filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Court in Riyadh, demanding compensation for damages he claims to have suffered due to the removal of part of his farm located in the Hail region. After the case was registered in the court records as Administrative Case No. (1/1088/Q) for the year 1424 AH, it was referred to the Second Administrative Circuit of that court, which commenced its consideration. In its final judgment, it ruled to dismiss the case for the reasons it explained. Upon the agent of the plaintiffs appealing the judgment before the Administrative Court of Appeal in the Riyadh region, an appeal case was registered under No. (525) for the year 1437 AH and referred to the Third Appeal Circuit of that court, which began its review and then issued its judgment rejecting the appeal submitted by the heirs' agent on procedural grounds; based on the fact that the circuit pronounced the judgment in the session dated 21/3/1436 AH and set the date for delivering the judgment as 22/4/1436 AH, and that the plaintiff delayed submitting the appeal request until 12/9/1436 AH, thus exceeding the statutory period for filing the appeal. After the plaintiff's agent submitted his objection to the Supreme Administrative Court against the Court of Appeal's judgment, it was referred to the Second Circuit of the Supreme Administrative Court, which examined the objection and then issued its ruling annulling the judgment of the Third Administrative Circuit of the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh; for the reasons stated therein, summarized as follows: "It is established from the documents that the First Instance Circuit issued its judgment in the session dated 21/3/1436 AH, and the plaintiff had died on 11/8/1430 AH as evidenced by the death certificate. The period between the death and the issuance of the first instance judgment included pleadings and procedures; which means that the case was not yet ready for judgment in application of Article 89 of the Law of Civil Procedure. Given that, and since Article 88 of the same law stipulates that: 'If the case is not ready for judgment on its subject matter, the litigation process shall be discontinued,' and according to Article 90 of the same law, the discontinuance of litigation results in the suspension of all procedural deadlines that were running for the parties and the nullity of all procedures conducted during the discontinuance. However, the First Instance Circuit continued the litigation process as mentioned despite the discontinuance and then issued its judgment in the session dated 21/3/1436 AH dismissing the case. After it was referred to the Third Circuit of the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh, it set objection dates and concluded in its contested judgment to reject the appeal submitted by the heirs' agent contrary to the provisions of the aforementioned legal texts; which means it committed a legal violation requiring its annulment. The court concluded to annul the judgment and return the case papers to the Administrative Court of Appeal in the Riyadh region to decide on the subject of the appeal by the circuit that issued the judgment," and upon referring the case to the Second Appeal Circuit of that court, it reopened the pleadings in the case, then ruled to reject the appeal submitted by the heirs' agent on procedural grounds, insisting on its judgment; based on what it stated that the court did not accept the appeal procedurally because it was submitted after the legally specified deadline, and therefore it was not permissible to examine the procedures that occurred during the discontinuance of litigation related to the subject matter. Additionally, the heirs' agent, after his authorization, did not raise nullity in the petition of objection nor during the pleadings; which means the right to raise nullity was forfeited according to Article (3/90) of the Implementing Regulation of the Law of Civil Procedure. On 22/12/1439 AH, the heirs' agent submitted to this court his objection to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, registered in its records under No. (490) for the year 1440 AH, requesting the annulment of the judgment for the reasons he mentioned, summarized as follows: The Court of Appeal did not follow the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court regarding what it decided, and it violated the legal provisions in that regard. Article (2/90) of the Implementing Regulation of the Law of Civil Procedure stipulates that: "If the case is not ready for judgment, the circuit may not rule on it during the discontinuance, and if it does, its judgment shall be void." The nullity is of public order and does not require raising by any party. Article (76) of the Law of Civil Procedure also stipulates that: "...the defense of non-acceptance of the case due to lack of standing or capacity... may be raised at any stage of the case and the court shall rule on it ex officio." Upon notifying the respondents of the petition of objection, the representative of the Ministry of Environment, Water, and Agriculture submitted a defense memorandum summarizing that the objection did not include any of the cases stipulated in Article (11) of the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances, and that the judgment under objection did not violate the law, as it was consistent with the provisions of Article (1/33) of the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances regarding the specified deadline for objection.

Whereas, in order to consider this objection, since the objection has fulfilled all its formal conditions and was submitted within the legally prescribed deadline; it is therefore formally admissible. Regarding the subject matter, the Second Appellate Circuit concluded in its judgment under objection to the same result as its previous judgment, which dismissed the appeal on formal grounds, whereas the Supreme Administrative Court ruled on the issue of formal admissibility of the objection, as it concluded in its ruling to revoke the judgment and return the case files to the Court of Appeal to decide on the subject of the appeal. This means that the Supreme Administrative Court considered the appeal to be formally admissible, and therefore referred the files to the Court of Appeal to decide on the subject of the appeal. Contrary to that, the Second Administrative Circuit of the Administrative Court of Appeal in Riyadh issued its judgment reaching the same conclusion as its previous ruling; relying on its statement that it is not permissible to accept the appeal formally before it is permissible to proceed with post-discontinuance procedures, considering that this depends on the formal acceptance of the appeal, which was not achieved. Undoubtedly, this constitutes an overreach by the Circuit in the Court of Appeal of its jurisdiction, and it is not permissible for it to delve into formal admissibility after it has been decided; as this would violate litigation procedures, the finality of judgments, and their binding effect. It also breaches a fundamental principle of judicial hierarchy, which is the obligation of the lower court to comply with what the higher court dictates, otherwise litigation would become perpetual and endless, never resolving disputes. Moreover, the approach taken by the Appellate Circuit reverts the situation to what it was before the activation of the Supreme Administrative Court, contrary to the provisions of the Law of Procedures before the Board of Grievances, including Article 58, which states: "If the judgment is revoked - i.e., by the Supreme Administrative Court - for reasons other than that, the case shall be referred to the court that issued the challenged judgment to decide it anew without reconsidering its jurisdiction. In this case, the court to which the case is referred must follow the ruling of the Supreme Administrative Court on the principle it decided." It does not change this that this court decided the case to be heard by the circuit that previously heard it, and that the provision in this regard is limited to jurisdiction; this is refuted by the fact that the statutory text is general and not an exception to a principle that cannot be analogized or broadly interpreted, but such is permissible if the conditions for analogy are met and the rationale is unified. In the present case, the non-acceptance concluded by the Appellate Circuit was due to the expiration of the deadline for submitting the objection, which is a procedural matter not subject to jurisprudential dispute or interpretation as is the case with substantive matters and some procedural rules that may arise from reasons. If that is so, and the present matter involves a unified rationale with lack of jurisdiction, it should be treated accordingly by the same circuit.

Therefore, the court ruled: to accept the objection formally, and on the merits to revoke the judgment under objection and return the case files to the Administrative Court of Appeal in the Riyadh region to decide on the subject of the appeal by the same circuit that issued the judgment.

And God is the Grantor of success, and may God’s prayers and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon his family and companions altogether.