Navigating translations of the Saudi Arabia’s Civil Transactions Law

The CTL consolidates key Sharia-based civil law principles into a unified legal framework that governs contracts, obligations and civil rights across the Kingdom.

In Saudi law, a single word can shift interpretation, and even minor differences in translation can influence how courts or institutions understand and apply a rule. Since its enactment, practitioners have paid close attention not only to the CTL’s substantive provisions, but also to how the English translations of its articles are articulated.

The first rule of accurate legal interpretation is simple: always start with the official text. The National Centre for Archives and Records (NACR) is the sole government platform that publishes the authentic and most up-to-date versions of Saudi laws and regulations.
Referring to unofficial or outdated materials, even unintentionally, carries significant risk. For those subject to Saudi law, this is not just a procedural point, but a matter of institutional credibility and interpretive precision. Relying on the NACR ensures that references to the CTL reflect its true, enacted language and meaning.

Legal translation is never neutral. Even small wording differences can subtly shift meaning, sometimes enough to affect how obligations or rights are understood. The CTL provides several examples of this, where English renderings vary slightly but significantly between published versions.

The English translations of the official CTL texts released through the NACR are issued by the Bureau of Experts at the Council of Ministers, which is the competent governmental authority responsible for publishing authorised legislative translations. The language in both the English translation of the CTL now published on the NACR portal and earlier English language translations is largely aligned, indicating that the variations are not because of an outdated law, but instead reflect updates introduced by the Bureau of Experts for consistency and clarity.

Some recent changes to English translations include in Article 160, where “such obligations” is changed to “thereto” in the most recent version. At first glance, the change may seem stylistic, but it carries real legal weight. The phrase “giving rise to such obligations” could, grammatically, be read to cover a broader set of obligations than intended. The alternative wording “giving rise thereto” precisely anchors the reference to obligations arising under this law alone, leaving no room for expansion.

This choice of expression aligns with formal legislative drafting standards, narrowing the scope and reinforcing certainty. It shows how one word can determine whether a provision reads as open-ended or self-contained, a distinction that can shape interpretation and application.

In Article 104(1), Clarifying the Principle of Clarity, the earlier translation, “on grounds of interpretation contraction parties”, is not only grammatically flawed, but also legally ambiguous. It risks implying that interpretation depends on what the parties intended, which contradicts the principle that clear language governs.

The NACR’s latest version, revised to “may not be construed in such a way to meet the intent of the contracting parties”, restores the intended meaning that when a contractual clause is clear, its wording cannot be reinterpreted to match the parties’ supposed intention. This upholds that the text itself prevails where the language is ambiguous, a core principle of the CTL.

Both examples make clear how careful wording safeguards legal certainty and consistency in enforcement.

The clarified and revised language in the version now published on the NCAR portal underscores the importance of consulting official sources and recognising the Arabic text as the definitive reference.

Language is more than a communication tool in Saudi law. It is a matter of legislative authority and Article 1 of the Basic Law of Governance establishes Arabic as the official and binding language of the Kingdom: “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic State. Its religion is Islam, its constitution is the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet, its language is Arabic, and its capital is Riyadh.”

In practice, this means that only the Arabic version of any Saudi law is legally binding. Translations, no matter how precise, serve only as aids for understanding. Where there is any inconsistency between an English translation and the Arabic text, the Arabic version always takes precedent.

This principle preserves legislative intent, ensures uniform interpretation, and reflects KSA’s broader legal philosophy that ties modern codification to its Sharia foundations.

The CTL represents a major step in the modernisation of Saudi civil law, yet its clarity and effectiveness depend on faithful interpretation from both a linguist and legal perspective.

Every word in the law carries weight. Small translation differences, such as those illustrated in articles 160 and 104(1), show how easily meaning can shift. For that reason, practitioners should always rely on official NACR publications, treat English translations as guidance rather than authorities, and ultimately defer to the Arabic text as the only binding version.

These principles of accuracy, reliance on official sources, and recognition of Arabic primacy, ensure the CTL is applied as intended – with precision, consistency, and full alignment with KSA’s legal and linguistic integrity.