(1) Judgment “Conclusiveness of Judgment: grounds entailing conclusiveness: limit and extent of conclusiveness”.
Conclusiveness of Judgment, its exclusivity to what has been connected to what was decided in the verbal verdict and its connected reasons thereof, where such reasons are absolutely connected and relevant to the judgment, and whereas, the judgment will not stand without the connected reasons.  Except for the additional reasons, which exceed the need of the case and will not be subject of judgment which attains the conclusiveness.
(2) Appeal: “effect leading to appeal”. “Requests in Appeal”. “Judgment of Appeal: dealing with whatever is omitted to be decided by the Court of First Instance”.
The Appeal shall not be accepted for pleadings which was heard and decided by the Court of First Instance, the effect thereof, the Court of Appeal is prohibited to deal with what has been omitted to be decided upon by the First Instance Court, the reason for that.
1- It is decided that the reference to the fact of what has been decided by the Court, is what is provided for in the verbal verdict and what is absolutely connected therewith, the result of which is the verdict which will not stand without such connected reasons, and as for the other reasons which are not connected to the verdict nor they form part thereof, are merely considered as redundant which does not attain any conclusiveness.
2- It is decided that, it shall not be permissible for the Court of Appeal to address the request which was omitted to be decided upon by the Court of First Instance, for the reason that the appeal shall not be accepted except for the requests which were examined and decided on by the Court, and therefore, the Appealed Judgment should, without the requests of the Litigants, stand within the limits of abstaining from accepting the Appeal filed against the Appellant, and it should have abstained from addressing the subject matter of the request as addressed to the Court of Appeal which was omitted to be decided upon by the Court of First Instance, and the consequence of such response, is the missing of one of the  litigation degrees, which will result in violation of the fundamental principle of dual tiers of  litigation upon which the Judicial system was built and as such it should not be violated by the Court, and it shall not be waived by the Litigants as it relates to Public Order.

After perusal of documents and hearing the report, which was read by the presiding Judge of the hearing, and after hearing the pleadings and after deliberation, and whereas, the appeal has satisfied the procedural formalities.
 
Whereas the facts, as shown from the appealed judgment and from all documents, can be summarised as that the First Respondent lodged  case No. 684/2003 against the Appellant and the Second Respondent, and pleaded the court to issue a judgment, to oblige the two to pay to the First Respondent an amount of two millions and eight hundred thousand and fourteen thousand Riyals and thirty five Dirham, and to allow the First Respondent to complete the rest of the construction work, and stated while explaining such pleading that the Appellant has awarded the Second Respondent construction work which belong to it, and whereas the latter had sub-contracted with it to undertake the construction work, and thereafter the First Respondent executed some of the work until it was suspended by the Appellant from working and consequently, it has lodged the case as the claimed amount becomes due. The Court appointed an Expert and after the delivery of the Expert’s Report, the Court decided not to accept the case because of the Arbitration Clause, and the First Respondent appealed this Judgment by Appeal No. 1112/2005 and on 20/12/2006 the Court decided to appealed judgment and to obligate the Appellant to pay the First Respondent the amount of (two million and five hundred and twelve thousand and eight hundred and thirty five Riyal). The Appellant had appealed this judgment by Cassation and the appeal is presented to this Court in the deliberation room and a hearing date was scheduled. And whereas the Appellant pleaded against the Appealed Judgment by stating that such Judgment has erroneously applied the law as it has addressed the request as pleaded by First Respondent and whereas such request is in its origin and pending before the Court of First Instance and yet to be decided by such Court, and for that reason such Judgment shall be deemed defective and shall warrant overturning.
 And whereas this challenge is plausible, and whereas the reference to the fact of what has been decided by the Court, is what is provided for in the verbal verdict and what is absolutely connected therewith, the result of which is the verdict which will not stand without such connected reasons, and as for the other reasons which are not connected to the verdict nor do they form part thereof, are merely considered as redundancy which does not attain any conclusiveness. And whereas this is the case, and the case is lodged to obligate the Appellant and the Second Respondents to pay to the First Respondent the due amount for the execution of construction work which was contracted with the latter to undertake the same. And the case under this circumstances shall considered as being lodged by separate requests, one of which was advanced against the Second Respondent, which was based on the Contract which was entered into between the Appellant and the First Respondent, and the Second one is lodged against the Appellant and it was based on the Law that allows the subcontractor to pursue its  claims directly against the Owner for whatever is due and not paid by the main contractor and whereas the Appellant and the Second Respondent defended that the case should not be heard for the existence of Arbitration Clause in the Contract between the Respondents, the First Instance Court decided that on 30/12/2003 to reject such defense with regards to the Appellant for the fact that the Appellant was not a party to the contract which contains the arbitration clause and thereafter, it decided in its Judgment dated 30/11/2005 and render a Judgment not to accept the case because of  arbitration clause after citing the reason that pursuant to its Judgment dated 30/12/2003 the Court has exhausted its jurisdiction concerning the preliminary defense of the Appellant and it rendered its Judgment which was based on the preliminary defense of the Second Respondent, and whereas the verdict of its Judgment as rendered on 30/11/2005 shall apply to the part of requests as lodged against the Second Respondent, whereas, for the requests which were lodged against the Appellant, the Court has abstained from examining the same and the Court rendered  its Judgment to refuse the defense against accepting such defense, and by doing do, the Court has erroneously or inattentively omitted to decide on the subject matter thereof. As such this decision should not be undermined by the reasons which were included in the last Judgment that the institution of the case against the Second Respondent the original Owner, even it can be validated pursuant to the provisions of Article (702) of the Civil Code which should be in pursuant to Article (270) and after from the same Law,  when the conditions thereof were met, and whereas those reasons, and under whatever opinion, are not connected to the Judgment which illustrate the reasons connected therewith, and as above mentioned, such Judgment suffices itself with rejecting the case against the Second Respondent for the existence of the Arbitration Clause in the Contract entered into between the Second Respondent and the First Respondent, whereas, it is not permissible for the Court of Appeal to deal with requests which were omitted by the First Instance Court, for the reasons that the Appeal should not be accepted except for applications that have been dealt with by that Court, and therefore, the Appealed Judgment should have stopped at the limits of deciding not to accept the Appeal as lodged against Appellant and as such the Appeal Judgment should have abstained from dealing with and deciding on the application put forward before the Court which was omitted by the Court of First Instance and whereas the consequence of such dealing is the omission of one stage of litigation, which violates the principle of  litigating through two tiers of litigation, which is the Fundamental Principle upon which the Judicial System is built and as such, it is not permitted for the Court to violate such principle, and it shall not be waived by litigant as it concerns Public Order. And therefore, as the Appealed Judgment has violated this, and for doing so it should be overturned without the need for further examination of the rest of the reasons.
And whereas the Appeal is capable of review, and based on the foregoing, it should not be permitted to accept the Appeal against the Appellant and therefore, the Appealed Judgment is overturned and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the Respondent, further the Court ordered the rejection of the Appeal No. 1112/2005 which was lodged against the Appellant and ordered the First Respondent to bear expenses.