Legal Precedent: The Court of Cassation establishes a principle regarding conflicting judgments and the authority of res judicata

Introduction

The ruling issued by the Egyptian Court of Cassation in Appeals Nos. 5511 and 5896 of Judicial Year 91 – Civil Circuit (A), dated February 23, 2025, is considered one of the prominent judgments addressing a highly significant legal issue related to the principle of res judicata and conflicting judgments. This principle represents one of the fundamental pillars of the judicial system and aims to achieve legal stability, prevent contradictory rulings, and avoid the recurrence of disputes.

First: Background of the Case Facts

The dispute dates back to a landowner’s claim for compensation for agricultural lands seized by the state under the Agrarian Reform Laws (Law No. 178 of 1952 and Law No. 127 of 1961). The appellant relied on the Supreme Constitutional Court ruling in Case No. 28 of Judicial Year 6, issued on June 6, 1998, which declared Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 127 of 1961 unconstitutional and annulled Article 5. This restored the landowners’ right to fair compensation according to general legal principles instead of the previously unjust arbitrary valuation, covering both the value of the seized land and the profits lost since the seizure.

The owner filed a lawsuit before the El-Mahalla El-Kubra Primary Court seeking compensation for the value of the expropriated land, including both material and moral damages. Following the proceedings and the appointment of an expert, the court ruled in 2014 obligating the administrative authority to pay 23,710,416.67 EGP to the appellant.

However, this ruling was appealed by both parties, and in 2017, the Court of Appeal issued a judgment reducing the compensation to 9,100,000 EGP only. The parties then filed separate appeals before the Court of Cassation, resulting in the issuance of two conflicting judgments:

• The first judgment (Appeal No. 9417 of Judicial Year 87) ruled as inadmissible.
• The second judgment (Appeal No. 11247 of Judicial Year 87) ruled to overturn the previous decision and referred the case for a new assessment of compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of the ruling.

Second: The Issue of Conflicting Judgments and the Authority of Res Judicata

In light of this conflict, the Court of Appeal, upon reconsidering the case, held that the previous judgment enjoys the authority of res judicata and ruled that the appeal could not be heard due to the prior adjudication.

However, the appellant contended before the Court of Cassation that the two judgments issued in 2018 and 2019 are conflicting, as they addressed the same dispute between the same parties on a single matter (the assessment of compensation), which nullifies the authority of each and requires the trial court to regain full jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

Third: Rationale of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation affirmed in its reasoning that Article 101 of the Evidence Law provides that judgments which have acquired the authority of res judicata are binding regarding the matters they decided. However, this authority is nullified if two conflicting judgments are issued in the same dispute between the same parties, in which case the judgments lose their binding effect and the court regains full jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter anew.

In the absence of specific legislation or customary law regulating such a case, the Court relied in its interpretation on principles of Islamic Sharia according to the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Civil Code, noting that when the original rule falls away, a substitute is applied, and there is no authority in case of a conflict. In the event that two equally conflicting judgments are issued, “one must return to the original rule,” meaning that the judge examines the merits of the case based on the evidence presented without being bound by either of the conflicting judgments.

Accordingly, the Court refused to give effect to either of the previous judgments and ruled that the error in applying the law occurred when the Court of Appeal relied on one judgment and not the other, which necessitated the annulment of its ruling.

Fourth: The Legal Significance of the Ruling

This ruling establishes a highly important principle in Egyptian jurisprudence and judiciary, which is as follows:

• No Authority in Case of Conflict: The issuance of two conflicting judgments in the same dispute between the same parties nullifies the binding effect of both.
• Restoration of the Trial Court’s Original Jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute without being bound by any prior conflicting judgment.
• Protection of the Judicial System from Conflicting Judgments and the consolidation of stability in legal transactions.
• Affirmation of the Role of the Court of Cassation in unifying legal principles and safeguarding the proper administration of justice.

Conclusion

This ruling reflects a profound understanding by the Court of Cassation of the delicate balance between the principle of the stability and authority of judgments on one hand, and the pursuit of justice and prevention of conflict on the other. It clearly establishes that protecting the judicial system from conflicting judgments takes precedence over rigidly adhering to the authority of a conflicting judgment, and that justice cannot be built on contradictory foundations.