The husband insisted that he bore the financial burdens resulting from a villa that he bought equally with his wife, without her committing to pay her dues, which included a loan they obtained together from a bank. She also did not pay her share of the advance price of the villa, demanding that the civil court in Dubai oblige her to pay the accumulated amount. on her.
In light of his possession of evidence and documents proving the validity of his claim, the wife had no choice but to ask the court to direct the decisive oath to her husband.
The court of first instance actually responded to her request and obligated him to the formula it specified: “I swear to God Almighty that I did not agree with my wife (the defendant) to buy the villa that is the subject of the lawsuit equally between us, and that I did not commit to paying the full purchase amount without any financial or legal responsibility for her, and that I bear All installments of the loan granted by the bank, and she owes me the amounts claimed.”
Here we come to a very important point related to the extent to which the opponents in the case realize that directing the decisive oath blocks the way for future appeals against the rulings issued pursuant to it.
In this case, the wife appealed the ruling before the Court of Appeal, and of course the court ruled that the appeal was not permissible and obligated her to pay the expenses.
Here we find it necessary to clarify the reasons. The decisive oath was prescribed to be a refuge for its owner when he lacks other means of proof that the law authorizes to provide to prove the validity of what he claims, and it is the property of the opponent, not the judge.
The judge must respond to a request to direct it if its conditions are met, such that it is related to the person to whom it is directed, decisive in the dispute before the court, and does not violate public order or morals, provided that the person requesting it is not arbitrary in his request.
It is not permissible to appeal the rulings issued based on the decisive oath, or to renounce them or reject them in any way of appeal, unless it is based on the impermissibility of directing them, the extent of their connection to the case, or the invalidity of the procedures for directing them.
As long as the procedure for directing the oath is correct, it may not be appealed, and this is what the court concluded.
Thus, it is necessary to be aware of these aspects before the opponent wastes his right to appeal by rushing to request an oath, instead of diligently finding other means of proof.
*Arbitrator and legal advisor
#court
