Civil Procedure Law
Nullity in Jordanian Civil Procedure Law: Theory and Procedural Effects
This summary sets out a structured definition of nullity under Jordanian civil procedure law and the doctrinal and judicial prerequisites for declaring an act null. It also explains the practical division between public-order and private-interest nullities and their consequences for raising objections, waiver, and the role of formal requirements under statutory provisions and case law.
Updated: 24 December 2023
Prepared and reviewed by: Ashraf Al-Khawaja
Concept of Nullity and Its Requirements
Nullity denotes a legal defect in a procedural act that renders it void when a prescribed formal requirement is missing. Doctrine and jurisprudence converge on two core elements for nullity: a procedural defect contrary to the prescribed form, and the failure of the act to produce its intended legal effects in a way that cannot be remedied to achieve its purpose.
Types of Nullity: Public-Order and Non–Public-Order
Doctrine distinguishes public-order nullity from non–public-order nullity. Public-order nullity protects fundamental state or judicial rules, may be raised by the court ex officio, and can be invoked by any interested party regardless of who caused it. Non–public-order nullity protects private interests; only the person for whose benefit the rule exists may rely on it, and it carries specific procedural consequences concerning timing and waiver.
Procedural Consequences: Who May Raise Nullity and When It Lapses
The Civil Procedure Law provides divergent rules: Article 25 restricts reliance on non–public-order nullity to the person it protects and allows its extinction by express or implied waiver, whereas public-order nullity may be raised at any stage. Article 110 requires certain procedural pleas to be raised together or be forfeited. Court of Cassation jurisprudence treating jurisdictional rules as public-order underlines the public character of some procedural defects.
Legislative Wording and Judicial Application: Dual Standards and Practical Implications
Article 24’s wording has generated debate by combining two standards: nullity where the law expressly prescribes it, and nullity tied to actual harm to a party. Courts, notably the Court of Cassation, have applied a strict approach where statutory provisions expressly declare nullity (e.g. provisions like Article 16), treating harm as presumed, while refraining from declaring nullity where the statute uses merely imperative or prohibitory language without explicit nullity. Practically, whether a provision is explicit affects the evidentiary burden and the timing and possibility of a nullity ruling, so practitioners must consult the operative texts and relevant case law for each situation.
Legal notice
Notice: The foregoing is general educational material based on the cited article (original source linked on the page). It does not constitute legal advice and is not a substitute for consulting a licensed Jordanian attorney. Verify applicable statutes, amendments, and deadlines in official sources before taking action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.