Refusal to take an oath: terms and conditions
Refusing to take an oath of proof in the legal sense is a process that must be carried out before the judiciary by establishing evidence of the validity of the plaintiff’s claim or not, with the aim of forming the judge’s belief regarding the existence of this incident or not. The evidence of proof varies and consequently its procedures vary. Some jurists have divided it into direct evidence that focuses on the incident to be proven, examples of which include writing, witness testimony, confession…etc Indirect evidence is not based on the original incident, but rather on another subsidiary incident that is used to prove the original incident.
It can be divided into evidence that has binding validity and does not accept proof of the opposite (such as conclusive legal evidence and a decisive oath) and evidence that has binding validity but accepts proof of its opposite
(such as writing and acknowledgment), and evidence that does not have any binding validity (such as witness testimony, judicial evidence).
Right in language: oath and alliance, and the alliance was called right, because if they allied, each one of them would strike his right against the right of his friend.
The oath, technically: confirming the ruling by mentioning the name of God Almighty, or one of His attributes in particular.
In judicial terminology, an oath is God Almighty’s testimony to the truth of what the ally says or the truth of what the other opponent says.
oath typs
The Saudi organizer defined the types of oaths in the draft Saudi Evidence System in Article (193) as follows:
Decisive oath
It is the one that the defendant takes to pay the lawsuit. If the plaintiff takes the oath at the defendant’s request, then if the plaintiff takes the returned oath, his lawsuit is returned.
The oath shall not be rejected if the defendant has sole knowledge of it and is sentenced by his guardianship.
The plaintiff requests the oath of his opponent, unless the case is decided by a final ruling.
It is not permissible for the person who takes the oath to mention it to go back on that when he has sworn before his opponent.
Complementary oath
It is the one that the plaintiff performs to complete the evidence. If he swears a judgment against him, and if he neglects it, his evidence is not taken into account and it is not permissible to return it to the defendant.
What is the difference between a decisive oath and a complementary oath?
The supplementary oath is supplementary evidence directed to complete incomplete evidence, while the decisive oath is considered independent evidence that alone is suitable for deciding the case.
The final oath is taken by the judge on his own initiative without the will of the opponents having anything to do with it. As for the decisive oath, the judge takes it at the request of the opponents and of their own will. This is what is expressed by the fact that the decisive oath is the property of the opponents and the final oath is the property of the court.
The right can be divided into a judicial right and a non-judicial right
Judicial oath: It is taken in the Judicial Council as a means of proof in the case under consideration, and is accompanied by conclusive knowledge, and is not taken except after a valid lawsuit.
Non-judicial oath: It is one that is agreed to be taken outside the Judicial Council, and is not intended to prove or deny an incident presented judicially.
Conditions that must be met to take an oath to the defendant
There are a set of conditions that must be met to take an oath to the defendant, which are:
Denial: This is when the defendant denies the right or religion that concerns him in favor of the plaintiff, explicitly by word or by indicating by turning away from speech.
The defendant is not required to take the oath unless the plaintiff requests it, as it is his right that must not be fulfilled unless he requests it.
There is no clear evidence that the right is owed by the defendant.
The claimed right must be a human right and not one of the rights of God Almighty, as it is not permissible to swear an oath against one of the rights of God Almighty.
There are a set of objective conditions that must be met to take the oath, that the sworn person be adult, sane, and of choice.
Procedural conditions that must be met to take the oath
To be before a judge in order to be a judicial oath, so an oath outside the Judicial Council is not considered.
To be performed in the form prescribed by the judge.
To be performed continuously.
To be facing her student, unless he has failed to attend without an excuse.
What is the ruling on refraining from taking an oath?
Whoever is sworn in and swears an oath, a ruling will be issued in his favor. However, if he refuses to take it without returning it to his opponent, he will be sentenced after being warned. Likewise, whoever is refused an oath, a ruling will be issued in her favor.
You can always contact the office of Attorney Abdulmajeed Al Rashid Law Firm and Legal Consultations to provide the necessary legal support
No comments