The decisive right and the complementary right

The decisive right and the complementary right

Disclaimer: This is a legal article that provides information that does not replace consulting a competent lawyer to help you and for more accurate information.

The Saudi evidentiary law regulates the rulings of oaths of both types (decisive and complementary), and the difference between them lies in several fundamental aspects related to their purpose, who directs them, and their impact on the case, as follows:

In terms of definition and purpose:

• Decisive oath: It is the oath taken by the defendant to advance the lawsuit and resolve and end the dispute.
• Complementary oath: It is the oath that the plaintiff takes to complete the evidence, that is, to strengthen the evidence he presented to the court.

In terms of the existence of evidence (proof):

• The decisive oath: The opponent often resorts to it when he is unable to provide evidence (the plaintiff who does not have evidence requests his opponent’s oath).
• Complementary oath: It is taken when the opponent has incomplete evidence (evidence that strengthens his side but is not sufficient to rule on its own), so the oath comes to complete this evidence.

On the right:

• Decisive oath: taken by the opponent (the plaintiff asks the court to take an oath to the defendant).
• Supplementary oath: The court directs it on its own initiative to the person who presented the missing evidence (the plaintiff).

In terms of the possibility of returning the oath:

• Decisive oath: The defendant may refuse to swear and return the oath to the plaintiff so that he can swear.
• Complementary oath: It is absolutely not permissible to return it to the other opponent.

In terms of the oath formula:

• The decisive oath: It can be on the “bit” (assertion and confirmation) if it is related to the action of the ally himself, or on the “negation of knowledge” if it is related to the negation of the action of someone else.
• Complementary oath: It must always be based on a decision only, and does not negate knowledge.

In terms of the effect of the nakul (abstaining from swearing):

• The decisive oath: If the person to whom the oath is directed is punished (and does not return it), he will be sentenced under his guardianship and lose the case.
• Complementary oath: If the plaintiff fails to swear it, he does not automatically lose the lawsuit, but rather his incomplete evidence that he presented is not taken into account, as if he did not present anything.

For law and legal consultations..Contact the office of lawyer Abdul Majeed Al Rashid.

References

• Article Ninety-Two of the Evidence law
• Article Ninety-Seven of the Evidence law
• Article 105 of the Evidence law
• Article 100 of the Procedural Evidence of the Evidence law