What is the ruling if a judge states, 'I ruled for so-and-so against so-and-so concerning such-and-such,' without attributing the ruling to evidence or other basis?

Primary text

If the judge states, 'I ruled for so-and-so against so-and-so concerning such-and-such,' without attributing his ruling to evidence or anything else, it must be accepted. This is the apparent meaning of the position of Al-Kharqi, as he did not mention the basis upon which the ruling was established. This is because whenever a judge rules on an issue where independent legal reasoning (ijtihad) is permissible, his ruling must be accepted, becoming equivalent to a consensus (ijma').