Neither Jordan Law No. 31/2001 nor Jordan Law No. 24/1988 defined the concept of the reasoning process for an arbitration award or a judicial ruling. Article 41 merely required the inclusion of reasoning in the arbitration award, and similarly, Article 160 of Jordan Law No. 24/1988 mandated the inclusion of reasoning in a judicial ruling as a formal requirement. However, the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation had addressed the concept of reasoning for judicial rulings in several decisions.

In JCC Case No. (227/1978 it was stated: “The Civil Procedure Law requires the court to provide reasoning for its rulings and to indicate the legal arguments and factual evidence on which it based its ruling. It is not sufficient to provide ambiguous or vague reasons. The court must also evaluate the documents presented in the case, and if it fails to do so, its ruling is considered deficient in reasoning and subject to annulment.”