Must a judge's statement be accepted if he claims to have ruled based on his personal knowledge, refusal to swear (nukul), or based on one witness and an oath in financial matters?

Primary text

If the judge states, 'I ruled based on my personal knowledge (ilmi),' or 'based on refusal to swear (nukul),' or 'based on one witness and an oath in financial matters,' his statement must be accepted. The evidence supporting this is that if he had stated he ruled in that manner, his ruling would have been enforced, so his report of the ruling must be accepted, similar to the preceding scenarios. Moreover, as a judge, his report concerning his ruling during his tenure must be accepted, just as if he had confirmed the ruling. Additionally, when a judge rules on an issue where ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) is permissible, his ruling cannot be overturned, and others must enforce and act upon it, making it equivalent to a ruling based on clear evidence. The opposing argument is not conceded.