The Court

Having reviewed the documents, heard the report read out by the rapporteur judge, and the litigations; and after the deliberations.
And upon the satisfaction of formal requisites of the appeal;
The facts, as revealed by the appealed judgment and other documents, may be summed up as follows; that the Appellant brought the claim No. 25/2007, applying ordering the Respondent Commission to pay to the Appellant the amount of 4.5 million Riyals in compensation of damages incurred as a result of the administrative decisions and orders issued by the Respondent, whereby it suspended and precluded the completion of the Appellant’s investment project, refused the registration of its contract of sale to a third party, and the imposition of a great difference in price if the relevant real estate was to be replaced with another. The Appellant elaborated his claim by stating that he had brought the claim No. 696/2005 against the Respondent Commission using the same applications, and that the court of first instance dismissed such claim, after which, in the appeal No. 29/2006 a judgment was issued cancelling the judgment of the court of first instance, and deciding that the ordinary courts do not have jurisdiction over the claim because all the applications of the relate to compensation for administrative decisions issued by the respondent, and that upon the issuance of Law No. 7 of 2007 on the Settlement of Administrative Disputes he is entitled to bring the claim. The court issued a judgment that it had no jurisdiction over the claim because the issuance of the administrative decisions purported to support the claim took place before the coming into force of Law No. 7 of 2007. Such decisions became fortified from inception against appeal by cassation, both as regards the annulment and compensation. The Appellant lodged an appeal No. 28/2008 before the Administrative Circuit. On 17.2.2009 the court issued a judgment cancelling the appealed judgment, and deciding that the claim could not have been entertained since it has been previously settled. The Appellant lodged an appeal by cassation against the said judgment, which was presented before this Court, at the deliberations chamber, and a session was fixed for its consideration.
The appeal is based on five reasons. In the first three reasons and the fifth one the Appellant contends against the appealed judgment that included an error in the application of the law. By way of elaboration the Appellant states that the appealed judgment issued a judgment that the claim could not have been entertained since it has been previously settled by the judgment issued on the appeal No. 29/2006, noting that the latter judgment failed to record its reasons, except as to the decision that the civil circuit did not have jurisdiction to entertain such claim, without mentioning or issuing decisions on the subject-matter of the dispute, which would have acquired exclusivity should that be presented again before such administrative circuit having jurisdiction so to entertain under the provisions of Law No. 7 of 2007 which endowed such circuit with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain administrative decisions and compensate therefor. This has established a new reason for the applications by the Appellant based on the said Law. Accordingly, the jurisprudence of the appealed judgment has resulted in the commandeering of the Appellant’s right adjudicate as provided under the Constitution, and the disturbance of his legal position in relation to his applications, thereby rendering such judgment defective and worthy of appeal by cassation.
This contention is incorrect. It is established jurisprudence of this Court that once a judgment acquires the res judicata status, the litigants in the claim in which such judgment was issued shall be precluded from discussing the matter which was settled, at any subsequent claim where such dispute is raised, even if by reliance on points of law or of fact not previously raised, or raised but were not included in the judgment thereon. Therefore, and since the judgment issued on the first claim brought by the appellant with the same applications has settled the dispute among the parties to the litigation, and delivered a decisive judgment that the ordinary courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain the said dispute, because it relates to an administrative decision falling outside its jurisdiction, such judgment should then acquire the res judicata status in connection to such matter, and the litigants shall be precluded from disputing such matter in a subsequent claim. This rule is not affected by the issuance of Law No. 7 of 2007 on the Settlement of Administrative Disputes, which provides for appeal by cassation against administrative decisions, including annulment and compensation, since the basic rule is that legal provisions only apply to events occurring from the date of their coming into force. Hence, the door shall be closed before appeals by cassation, and applications for compensation, against an administrative decision issued before the date of application of such law on 1.10.2007, as regards the party against whom such decision was issued, since the decision becomes fortified from inception against appeal by cassation, because it has been issued before the establishment of the annulment or compensation jurisprudence. The test is the date on which the decision required to be annulled, or compensated for, was made. It matters not that in the current claim such decision preceded the application date for Law No. 7 of 2007. Accordingly, the appealed judgment has properly applied the law, and the contention, with all its aspects, against such judgment becomes inappropriate.

In the fourth reason of the appeal the appellant contends against the appealed judgment that it included an error in the application of the law. The Appellant elaborates by stating that the jurisprudence of the appealed judgment includes defeating exclusivity. The reasons of judgment in the appeal No. 29/2006 state that issuing a judgment deciding the lack of jurisdiction to entertain the claim would not harm, but would rather benefit, the Appellant, since the jurisprudence of the court of first instance dismissing the claim, should it be affirmed, would have acquired the res judicata status that would preclude the re-presentation of his applications before the authorised entity specified by the law which determines its jurisdiction to entertain the applications for the annulment or compensation for administrative decisions, as long as his right to such applications remain intact and not vitiated by any refuting reason. The judgment is thereby defective and worthy of appeal by cassation.
This contention is inappropriate. It is established jurisprudence of this Court that the exclusivity of the matter in respect of which a judgment was issued, will affect only the finding, and will not affect the reasons of the judgment except those so tightly connected to such finding, and matters settled by the judgment, either in the finding or the reasons without which the finding would not stand, or matters not actually entertained by the court, or matters stated in the reasons but are in excess of what is needed in the claim. These do not acquire the res judicata status.
Therefore, and since the judgment’s conclusion in the appeal No. 29/2006 is the lack of jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and since what such judgment has stated in its reasons that the Appellant was not harmed but rather benefited from the judgment on the lack of jurisdiction, in the sense that he would be able to re-present his applications before the authorised entity specified by the law which determines its jurisdiction to entertain such applications, are considered as additional reasons, which were not related to the finding that can dispense therewith; such reasons should not acquire any exclusivity before the circuit before which the dispute was re-presented. Accordingly, the contention becomes groundless, and inappropriate.
Therefore, and according to the aforesaid, this appeal by cassation shall hereby be dismissed.