The difference between an official editor and a regular editor in the Saudi proof system

The document is one of the most important means of proof in judicial disputes, as it may result in the creation of serious financial or legal obligations, and it may be the decisive factor in tipping the scales in favor of one of the litigants before the court. For this reason, the Saudi system of evidence has given special attention to regulating the provisions of documents, and has clearly distinguished between the official document and the ordinary document in terms of definition, evidentiary power and legal effect.

An official document is a document in which a public official or a person entrusted with a public service records what he has done or what he has received from the concerned parties, in accordance with the statutory procedures and within the limits of his authority and jurisdiction. The system of evidence has established special force for these documents, as Article Twenty-Six thereof stipulates that an official document is proof against everyone regarding what is recorded therein of matters that its issuer has done within the limits of his duties or that occurred from the concerned parties in his presence, unless its forgery is proven by the methods prescribed by law. It follows that an official document is considered conclusive proof, and the person relying on it is not required to prove its validity, and it cannot be challenged except by a claim of forgery in accordance with the prescribed statutory procedures.

As for the ordinary document, it is what the parties draw up between themselves and includes contracts, declarations and all other documents that do not meet the conditions set by the system for the official document, so it is considered an ordinary document from the point of view of the system. The system of evidence has regulated its validity in the text of Article Twenty-Nine, which stipulated that the ordinary document is evidence against the one who signed it, unless he explicitly denies what is attributed to him in terms of handwriting, signature, seal or fingerprint. If the signature is proven, the signatory is bound by everything contained in the document, and it is not accepted from him thereafter to claim lack of understanding, haste or ignorance of its content. And whoever is challenged with an ordinary document and discusses its subject before the court, it is not accepted from him to deny its validity thereafter.

It is clear from this that an ordinary document, despite its apparent simplicity, may create a full legal obligation when its attribution to the person who signed it is proven, and denying it may entail complex proof procedures and legal consequences that prolong the judicial dispute. Hence, the real difference between an official document and an ordinary document does not appear at the moment of signing, but rather becomes clearly evident when the dispute arises and the parties appear before the court, where the evidentiary power of each document and its effect in proving or disproving rights is determined.