Judicial principles and studies
Invalidity of Proceedings for Improper Representation (Public Order)
The appellate court found the trial proceedings void because the special power of attorney did not authorize representation, requiring remand to correct the proceedings and for a new judgment, as the issue implicates public order.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The appellate court concluded that the special power of attorney relied on by the defendant's agent did not authorize representation in the lawsuit, rendering the first-instance trial proceedings void and affecting the resulting judgment.
Summary
The appellate court held that voidness due to lack of legal representation requires remitting the case back to the trial court to correct the proceedings and then issue a new judgment, because the validity of those proceedings concerns public order. In such circumstances, Article (5/188) of the Civil Procedure Law cannot be applied, as that provision addresses situations where procedures are otherwise valid and not affected by a public-order-related nullity. This is an educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Practical significance
- Where a special power of attorney does not confer authority to represent, proceedings must be annulled and remitted for correction. - Nullity tied to public order excludes applying stabilization rules applicable to otherwise valid procedures. - Courts must determine whether the representation defect implicates public order before considering provisions like Article (5/188).
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.