Judicial principles and studies
Retrial: Contradiction in the Operative Part, Parties' Requests, and Advertising-Fees Issues
A brief summary explaining when retrial grounds arise for contradictions in a judgment, the distinction from contradictions in reasoning, the court's duty to follow parties' requests, and the issue of municipal claims for billboard fees.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
This summary explains the legal thresholds for filing a retrial request when a judgment contains contradictions, distinguishing contradictions in the operative part from contradictions in the reasons under Article 213/6. It also addresses the court's duty to decide within the scope of parties' requests under Article 213/5, the thirty-day deadline for a retrial request under Article 214 counted from finality, and the regulatory relationship between billboard companies and the Greater Amman Municipality under Licensing Instruction No. 1/2006 issued pursuant to Article 41 of the law (amendment No. 79/1966), including the limits on fee collection and the court's role under Article 41/2.
Summary
- A retrial is not justified solely by a contradiction in the reasons if the operative part of the judgment does not contradict; Article 213/6 requires contradiction in the operative wording for retrial grounds, while contradictions in reasons are handled via ordinary appeals. - A court must adjudicate according to the parties' requests; issuing a decision beyond those requests or outside the subject-matter can constitute a retrial ground under Article 213/5. - Article 214 fixes a thirty-day period to submit a retrial request, counting from the date the judgment becomes final as indicated by the text (i.e., the date of issuance of the cassation ruling), not by case closure. - Licensing Instruction No. 1/2006 ties entitlement to licensing fees to obtaining a license or issuance of a license-granting decision and allows the municipality to collect annual fees, but it does not authorize charging the same fees for unlicensed media; Article 41/2 entrusts the judiciary with imposing fines on violators. - A municipal claim for fees without a license departs from the cause and may amount to deciding what was not requested, making a retrial request substantively acceptable in that context per the official points.
Practical significance
- Do not pursue retrial remedies for contradictions limited to the reasons; distinguish those from operative-part contradictions and use ordinary appeal channels when appropriate. - Courts and litigants must ensure decisions remain within the scope of requests to avoid retrial grounds. - Observe the thirty-day deadline under Article 214 from finality when filing retrial requests. - For municipal claims on billboard fees, verify the existence of a license or a licensing decision before accepting fee claims; demanding fees without license can justify a retrial request. Note: This content is an educational summary only and does not constitute judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.