Administrative Litigation Incidents and their Impact on Bahraini and Comparative Legislation (A Comparative Study) Abstract : This study handles incidents of administrative litigation in Bahraini legislation "a comparative study" where the comparative descriptive approach used along with the legal analysis approach. The study focuses on comparisons among legislations in Arab Republic of Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Kingdom of Bahrain. It starts with an introductory chapter which presents a conceptual framework on administrative litigation definition. Then, first chapter tackles suspension as an incident that hinders administrative litigation proceeding. Therefore, suspension incident is defined along with its terms and conditions and its consequences on administrative litigation. Second chapter deals with discontinuance of litigation, cases where discontinuance applies, its terms, conditions and its consequences on administrative litigation. In the third chapter, it handles abandonment of administrative litigation, its definition, its terms and condition as well as its impact on administrative litigation. In the fourth and final chapter, the study presents administrative litigation prescription, its definition, study of cases where prescription applies, and its consequences on administrative litigation. The study revealed that there is no clear definition for administrative litigation in particular due to the differences among legislations in handling the subject of litigation: Kingdom of Bahrain adopts the unified law system which renders court of cassation, one of the states supreme courts, the jurisdiction to consider administrative disputes and this allows overlapping of courts' jurisdictions. Regarding the Egyptian legislation, it adopts the dualist legal system and gave particular significance to administrative disputes which fall under the jurisdiction of the Egyptian Council of State. In Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Board of Grievances is the competent authority for consideration of administrative disputes, and the Jordanian draft adopted the same in terms of how it handles the administrative disputes. Despite the difference displayed in how administrative disputes are considered, administrative litigation process and incidents are highly consensual in terms of the legal texts stipulated in the pleading systems of Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain as well as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan where ambiguity, mystery and complications reveal the wording and the concept of administrative litigation' incidents in Judicial Procedures Code and in Court of Justice Law too. Administrative litigation proceeding in Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain are constant to great extent as well as administrative litigations' incidents and cases, their effect on litigation and proceedings are also similar and compatible to great extent in the said legislations. Despite the consistency found in such texts, terms and conditions, cases and the consequences of litigation incidents, there are some evident differences such as not handling prescription incident by the Egyptian and Saudi legislators, ignorance of the definition of incidents by the Jordanian legislator and the contradiction provided concerning the required period to prove litigation incident such as litigation to be prescribed if totally abandoned for five years in Bahraini legislation. In conclusion, the study provides some findings and recommendations which we hope the Bahraini legislator may take into account as possible.