Judicial Expert Evidence in the Saudi Evidence Law

Judicial Expert Evidence in the Saudi Evidence Law

Judicial expert evidence has become a key factor influencing the trajectory of a wide range of disputes in Saudi Arabia, particularly those of a technical, financial, or commercial nature. With the enactment of the Evidence Law, expert evidence is no longer a peripheral or auxiliary procedure. Instead, it has been restructured as a regulated means of proof subject to strict legal controls and judicial oversight in terms of selection, methodology, and evidentiary weight.

This shift requires boards of directors, legal teams, and business owners to develop a deeper understanding of how courts engage with expert evidence—not merely as a technical report, but as a strategic tool that may tip the balance of litigation or undermine an entire evidentiary framework if affected by legal or methodological deficiencies.

Alsalamah Law Firm provides a comprehensive overview of judicial expert evidence under the Saudi Evidence Law in this article.

Criteria for Selecting an Expert: Precision of Specialization, Not General Description

The Evidence Law introduced a clear standard for selecting experts, moving beyond the traditional perception of expertise as a general attribute. Article (110/2) expressly provides that:
“In selecting an expert, due regard shall be given to the compatibility between the expert’s technical knowledge and experience and the subject matter of the dispute.”

This provision establishes a critical practical principle: the mere designation of an individual or entity as an “expert” is insufficient unless such expertise specifically corresponds to the technical field in dispute. This compatibility is not a procedural formality but a substantive requirement upon which the integrity of technical evidence fundamentally depends.

From a compliance and risk management perspective, an error in expert selection may result in the exclusion or reduced probative value of the expert report, directly impacting legal positions and contractual and financial obligations.

Procedural Guidelines: Institutionalizing Compatibility as a Procedural Safeguard

The procedural guidelines accompanying the Evidence Law reinforce this principle by emphasizing the necessity of ensuring compatibility between the expert’s field and the nature of the dispute as a core safeguard for the validity of expert evidence. These guidelines treat this requirement not as a mere administrative directive but as an essential element to ensure that the expert report fulfills its intended purpose—assisting the court in forming its conviction on a sound technical basis.

For commercial entities and legal departments, this translates into the need for careful scrutiny of the expert’s identity, professional background, and practical experience in the relevant industry, rather than relying solely on general credentials or classifications.

Practical Dimension: Professional Expertise, Local Custom, and Market Practice

Saudi judicial precedents have consistently held that admissible expert evidence must be grounded in practical experience connected to the real-world activity underlying the dispute. Technical assessment, according to established jurisprudence, should be conducted by experts familiar with local commercial custom and prevailing industry practices.

This principle has significant implications for commercial and investment disputes, where operational models, valuation methods, and risk profiles vary across sectors. The appointment of an expert lacking practical market insight may result in conclusions that fail to reflect operational reality, even if the report appears methodologically sound in form.

Standard for Accepting an Expert Report: Methodology Before Outcome

The Evidence Law does not grant automatic evidentiary weight to expert reports. Instead, their probative value depends on the soundness of the methodology and reasoning applied. The decisive factor is not the expert’s conclusion but the technical path followed to reach it.

Saudi courts have affirmed that an unreasoned expert opinion is insufficient to support a judicial ruling. The evidentiary value of the report derives from the integrity of its methodology, clarity of reasoning, and adherence to the scope of assignment set by the court.

When Is a Report Rejected, Partially Adopted, or Reconsidered?

Courts exercise extensive supervisory authority over expert evidence. They may entirely disregard a report if it is issued by an unqualified expert, exceeds the scope of assignment, or lacks technical justification. Courts may also adopt certain parts of the report while rejecting others, provided the report is divisible. Additionally, courts may order a new expert examination where the report fails to address the technical questions posed or suffers from material methodological deficiencies.

This framework reflects that expert evidence is not a rigid procedure but a dynamic process subject to judicial discretion in pursuit of justice.

If your case requires technical or judicial expertise before Saudi courts, our experienced lawyers can guide you through the legal process.

Book a consultation with us today.

Is the Expert Report Binding on the Court?

A well-established principle in Saudi jurisprudence is that expert reports are not binding on the court. Judges retain full authority in forming their judicial conviction, accepting the aspects they find persuasive and rejecting others. However, judges may not substitute themselves for experts in purely technical matters, nor may experts interpret legal provisions or decide the dispute.

This balance preserves judicial independence while preventing expert evidence from becoming a parallel decision-making authority.

Judicial Authority in Managing Expert Evidence

The Evidence Law confirms that expert evidence is subject to full judicial supervision. Article (113) provides:
“The court may, on its own initiative or upon the request of a party, dismiss the expert.”

This reflects broad judicial powers, including appointing experts, defining their mandate, modifying its scope, replacing or dismissing experts, and ordering re-examination when necessary. Accordingly, expert evidence remains an integral part of the evidentiary system under judicial control at all stages.

Practical Judicial Application in Technical Disputes

A recent commercial judgment illustrates the advanced judicial application of these standards in a technical dispute concerning the implementation of enterprise resource planning systems (ERP – SAP) between a publicly listed company and its contractor.

The court defined the scope of the dispute as determining compliance with agreed project milestones, verification of phased delivery, and the resulting entitlement to contractual payments, without extending to an assessment of the system’s operational efficiency.

Accordingly, the court limited the expert’s mandate to reviewing contractual documents, delivery records, and milestone outputs, and assessing financial entitlements under the contract. A specialized accounting expert was appointed, as the core dispute related to financial claims arising from contractual performance rather than technical system evaluation.

The appellant challenged the expert’s competence, arguing that the dispute required technical expertise in information systems. The opposing party maintained that the mandate involved contractual and financial analysis, not technical evaluation.

The first-instance court distinguished between the technical nature of the project and the legal nature of the disputed issues. It concluded that the expert adhered to the assigned mandate, adopted a clear methodology, and relied on documented evidence, and therefore relied on the report.

On appeal, the appellate court affirmed that the adequacy and type of expertise fall within the trial court’s discretionary authority. Mere objection to the expert’s profession or requests for more specialized expertise do not compel the court to comply if the existing report fulfills its evidentiary purpose.

Risks of Defective Expert Evidence

If a judgment relies on an expert report issued by an unqualified expert, lacking reasoning, or exceeding its mandate, this may constitute defective reasoning or flawed evidentiary inference, providing grounds for appeal.

Therefore, effective management of expert evidence from the outset is a critical tool in mitigating litigation risks, particularly in high-value commercial and investment disputes.

Expert Evidence and Other Forms of Proof

Expert evidence is neither an autonomous nor binding proof in absolute terms. Rather, it serves as a technical instrument that may outweigh conflicting evidence when methodologically sound. However, it may lose this role if affected by deficiencies or contradicted by stronger evidence.

This understanding directly impacts litigation strategies, as reliance solely on expert reports without a robust evidentiary framework may weaken the case.

Conclusion

The restructuring of judicial expert evidence under the Saudi Evidence Law has transformed it from a secondary technical procedure into a strategic element influencing dispute outcomes. The real distinction lies not in the existence of expert evidence but in how it is managed, the expert selected, the scope defined, and the report handled with advanced legal awareness.

In this evolving landscape, litigation is no longer confined to defending a legal position. It now involves managing a sophisticated technical instrument that may determine the difference between a final, enforceable judgment and prolonged appellate uncertainty.

For comprehensive advisory services on expert evidence and all aspects of the Saudi Evidence Law, specialized legal guidance remains essential.