Must a judge validate a previously rendered judgment if the litigant recalls it?
General Chapter
Al-Mughni
Book of Judiciary
Primary text
If a litigant claims before the judge that the judge previously ruled in their favor against an adversary, and the judge recalls and states their judgment, the judgment must be upheld and the adversary bound by it. This action is an affirmation of the previous ruling, not a new judgment based on current knowledge. If the judge does not recall the ruling, and two witnesses testify before the judge regarding that prior judgment, the judge is obligated to accept their testimony and enforce the previous decision. Ibn Abi Laila and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan support this view. This aligns with the reasoning of Ahmad, who stated that the Imam should defer to the testimony of two or more subjects.
Supporting text
Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, and Al-Shafi'i maintain that the judge should not accept the testimony of two witnesses regarding a prior ruling, arguing that the judge has recourse to their overall knowledge and should not revert to mere conjecture, similar to a witness who forgets their testimony. The justification for enforcing the witnesses' testimony is that if the judge accepts their testimony regarding another judge's ruling, they should similarly accept it concerning their own ruling, as the witnesses are testifying to the ruling of a judge.