Judicial principles and studies
Appellate Court Insistence and Authority over Fees
The study outlines an appellate court's duties when it follows or refuses to follow a cassation decision, and limits on adjusting attorneys' fees when insisting. It explains consequences of breaching mandatory procedural rules.
Updated: 10 September 2026
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Subject
The points set out the appellate court's obligations regarding a cassation ruling: if it follows cassation it must fully comply and may not sever the claim contrary to it; if it refuses to follow cassation it must issue an insistence judgment containing the elements required by Article 160 of the Civil Procedure Code and must respond to the appeal reasons under Article 188/4 without adding or amending reasons or re‑examining cassation grounds to show error.
Summary
Where, after cassation, the trial court acting as an appellate court sent an inquiry to the labor directorate and then, upon reply, decided in session not to follow cassation and to insist, it may not in its reasoning re‑argue the issue that was the subject of cassation or use that discussion to justify insistence, nor adjust the awarded attorneys' fees in the operative paragraph. Such conduct breaches a mandatory procedural rule; the breach is substantive and results in nullity of the proceedings and a judgment that is defective and subject to cassation.
Practical significance
Adhering to the formal and substantive limits of an insistence judgment is essential to the validity of post‑cassation appellate procedures. The described violation produces a direct procedural consequence: nullity and a ground for cassation. This content is a general educational summary and is not judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.