Judicial System

Judicial System in Saudi Arabia
evidence and other signs that may help him to ascertain rights
provided that such must be clear to rely on in reasoning his
rulings, or to complement a deficient evidence so together
they will form his opinion with respect to issuing his ruling.
Sixth: Judicial cognizance: Scholars agree that a judge
must not act on the information he has even if proved in
evidence; so if he has information of a divorce or debt and
a proof was established contrary to his information, he
definitely must not act on the evidence he personally had.
Some scholars opined that the judge must abstain/ step
aside and act as witness. (1) However, scholars differ as to
the information a judge has, other than in court, whether
he should act on such information, and the majority opined
that he should not act on such information – he would be
considered as involved in the matter.
Judicial Cognizance under the Saudi Judicial System:
The Saudi law under the Criminal Procedure Regulation did
not recognize judicial cognizance, and as well prohibited
judges from acting against the information they have.
Seventh: Examination and expertise: this means that
the judge by himself or through an expert examine the
place of dispute to know the truth. Examination may be in
court, so the information he will have will tantamount to
evidence, confession and oath; this will not be considered
as acting on his information, but as acting on facts proved
in court.
(1) See: Muqni Al Muhtaj 4/398; Kashaf Al Qinaa 4/197; Al Taj wa Al Ikliel 6/140.
269