Section 172 — Restitution after void juristic act
Statutory text (Thai original)
โมฆะกรรมนั้นไม่อาจให้สัตยาบันแก่กันได้ และผู้มีส่วนได้เสียคนหนึ่งคนใดจะยกความเสียเปล่าแห่งโมฆะกรรมขึ้นกล่าวอ้างก็ได้ถ้าจะต้องคืนทรัพย์สินอันเกิดจากโมฆะกรรม ให้นำบทบัญญัติว่าด้วยลาภมิควรได้แห่งประมวลกฎหมายนี้มาใช้บังคับ
Verbatim from the Royal Gazette / Office of the Council of State
English translation
A void act cannot be ratified, and its nullity may be alledged at any time by any interested person. The return of a property arising from a void act shall be governed by the provisions on Undue Enrichment of the Code.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
Section 172 is what allows the parties to unwind a void contract financially. After a §150 declaration of voidness, money or property already transferred is recovered under the undue-enrichment rules of §§406-419. Two practitioner traps: (1) the prescription period for restitution is one year from when the claimant knew about the entitlement, capped at ten years from the transfer — count carefully; (2) if the void act involved an illegal purpose known to both parties, §411 may bar restitution entirely (in pari delicto).
Why this matters in practice
For lawyers: there is no time bar on asserting that an act is void under section 172 — any interested person may raise it at any stage including appeal and cassation. However, the restitution claim itself (for return of what was transferred under the void act) is a separate action governed by the undue enrichment prescription periods. For laypeople: if a contract is void, neither party can be forced to perform it, and anything already handed over can be claimed back under the law of undue enrichment.
Legislative history
Part of the original Civil & Commercial Code codification; no major subsequent amendment.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 14858/2558 (2015)
A juristic act that is void because it is expressly prohibited by law (section 150) cannot be relied upon by either party under section 172, regardless of their intentions at the time.
After the court had made an absolute sequestration order against a debtor, that debtor nonetheless joined in registering a mortgage over land in favour of the opposing party. The Court held that the post-sequestration mortgage registration was expressly prohibited by law (sections 22 and 24 of the Bankruptcy Act) and was therefore void under section 150 CCC. Under section 172, neither the mortgagee nor the debtor could rely on or benefit from that void juristic act.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.