(1-4) Evidence “Method of Proof: Judicial Admission, Evidence, Conclusive Oath”. Personal Matters: “Guardianship over Money”. Judgment, Reasoning: Defective Evidence and what is not consider defective”. Law Suit “Litigants of the Case”: the Juridical Litigants” Authorities: “Minors’ Affairs Public Authority”, “Circumstances of Its Guardianship over Monetary affairs of Minors”. Public Order.
 
(1) The Legal Guardianship over Minors’ Money. Left to the jurisdiction of the Minors’ Affairs Public Authority as provided for by Article (4) of the Emiri Decree No. 66 of 2004, of establishing the Minors’ Affairs Public Authority, the existence of Guardian or appointed Guardian. Its effects. Eliminating the Guardianship of the Authority over the Minor’s money and the disposal thereof, and the Guardian or Custodian shall represent the Minor in defending or instituting Law Suits. There is no existence of provision of Law which provide for litigating the Authority or inserting it or to insert itself in such Suits. Its effects. It shall not be considered as Real litigant in the Case.
(2) The Conclusive Oath. The nature thereof. It is not permitted to be rendered except between the Litigants. The decision of the Appealed Judgment that the conclusive oath as addressed to the Appellants by the Minors’ Affairs Public Authority is not warranted for the reason that, in the existence of Guardian, the Authority shall not be deemed as a Party to the Suit. No defect.
(3) The Judicial Admission. The Nature thereof, the conclusive and inclusive admission of the claimed right made by the Opponent favor of its Opponent. The effect thereof. It shall be conclusive evidence against the Opponent who made the admission and it shall not be permitted to be retracted for the purpose of denying the admitted right. Article (302) of the Law of Civil and Commercial Procedures.
(4) It should not be permitted to prove by verbal evidence where the proof in writing is required. It does not relate to Public Order. When the Opponent does not assert the same before hearing the Witnesses testimony. Its effect.  It shall be considered as waiver of rights to assert the method of proof as subscribed by Law. It shall not be permitted to be invoked later as challenge.
 
1- The provision of Article (4) of the Emiri Decree No. 66/2004 of establishing the Public Authority of Minors’ Affairs where the Authority “shall aim to preserve, develop and to protect the Monetary rights and the money of the Minors and whoever is in similar position of a Minor in a manner that will guarantee their welfare and be generally beneficial to all of their affairs, and in pursuing so, the Authority shall have the right to do the following: 1- guardianship over Minors and the Conceptus who do not have Guardian or Chosen Custodian,……… 3- To supervise the disposals of Guardians and Custodians and to look into their performance of duties and their practices as prescribed by the Law..……7- To prepare and to execute the necessary Studies and Planning to develop the Monies of the Minors and the similarly situated and other monies that are managed by the Authority pursuant to the rules of the Islamic Sharia, indicates that the Legal Guardianship over Minor’s Money will not be assumed by the Authority except in the situations as exclusively provided for, and one of which situation is the Guardianship over Minors and the Conceptus who do not have Guardian or Chosen Custodian, and therefore, and in the event any of which is present the Guardianship of the Authority will diminish with respect to all management aspects of Minors Money or the dispositions thereof as prescribed and provided for by the Law and the Guardian or the Custodian shall only represent the Minor in all cases whether for or against such Minor, and where the Law is silent from providing for the situation of suing the Authority or to be joined or to join itself in such Cases, whether such joinder is requested by the Litigants, or by the Authority itself or by the Court or the subject requires the opinion of the Authority as provided for by the application of the Law of the Guardianship over Money before the decision is rendered by the Court, all of which will not render the Authority to be real Litigant of the case or to enjoy whatever is the rights of Litigants.
2-  It is decided that the Conclusive Oath is owed to Litigants of the Case where it is considered as reliance by the requested Litigant on the conscience of Litigant who will take it, and by requesting so, such Litigant has waived its rights to use all other methods of evidence of proof and it shall not be permitted for such Litigant, after the Conclusive Oath was sworn, or after it was taken back against such Litigant and failed to sworn, to introduce any other evidence to refute what has been conclusively determined by the Oath, a matter that warrants that such Oath should not be asserted except among the real Litigants of the Case, and whereas the Appealed Judgment has concluded that the Conclusive Oath which was asserted by the Authority the Respondent against the Appellants, is not legally valid as being asserted, within the existence of the Minor’s Guardian, by the Authority which is not the real Party of the Case, thus, such Judgment shall not considered as violating the Law.
3-  The Provision of Article (302) of Civil and Commercial Procedures provides that “the Judicial Admission is a confession of the Opponent or his special representative before the Judiciary in a Law Suit leveled against such Opponent during the proceeding of such a Case ….”, and pursuant to Article (303) of the same Law that “the admission is the conclusive evidence against the confessor and exclusively concern him….” It shall construe as that the Judicial Admission is what has been issued by the Opponent in Judicial Council and intended to admit the right of its Opponent on the claimed right and as it presented in a manner which will exclusively and convincingly prove the admitted right, and the issuance of which in this manner will render it as a conclusive evidence against the Confessor and in such manner, it shall not be retracted to the extent indicates denial of the claimed right.
4- It is decided that the rule of prohibition against proving by statement evidence in situation where the written evidence is required is not a matter of Public Order, and whoever is inclined to assert the defence of not permitting the evidence of proof by statement, shall address the Trial Court before the hearing the testimony of Witnesses , if such Party is silent to assert the same, such silence shall be considered as a waiver of its right of evidence of proof as prescribed by law, and  therefore in such case is not permitted to be asserted thereafter.

After perusal of documents and hearing the report, which was read by the presiding Judge at the hearing, and after hearing pleadings and deliberating, and whereas, the appeal has satisfied the procedural formalities.
 
Whereas the facts, as shown from the appealed judgment and from other documents, can be summarised to the effect that the two Respondents and others who are not presented in the Appeal, have lodged case no. 46/2006 pleaded the court to issue a judgment, to prove their ownership of the Property No…. and to Order the issuance of deed of title for them, and to explain the Case they asserted that their Brother ……. purchased the Property under his name and that he was buying such Property in their account and for that they paid the Purchase Price from their own money and by his death and where his inheritance is declared for the Respondents , and for the reason that they intended to remove the Property from the inheritance, they have lodged this Case, the Court referred the Case for investigation and heard the Witnesses of proof, and further the Court ordered the Joinder of the Public Authority of Minor’s Affairs in the Case and thereafter the Consultant of the Authority has requested the Conclusive Oath of the Appellant and they swore the Oath and the Court has accordingly decided to confirm the Ownership of the Property to the Appellants in their Share in the Property and to transfer title under their name to share ownership by 800 shares for each after they pay the remainder of the purchase price to the Inheritors of their brother ……. the First and the Second Respondents have lodged an appeal against that Judgment by Appeal No. 263/2006, and also, the Authority has appealed the Judgment  the Third Respondent by Appeal No. 265/2006 dated 21/1/2007, the Court has decided to overturn the Appealed Judgment and to dismiss the Case. The two Appellants have lodged an Appeal by Cassation against this Judgment, and such Appeal was presented before the Court in the Consultation Room and a hearing was scheduled.
 And whereas the Appeal was based on three grounds, in the first of which the Appellant pleaded  that the Appealed Judgment erred in applying the law and to explain that they stated that the Appealed Judgment reached the conclusion to prohibit assertion of the conclusive oath to them from the Authority the third Respondent for the reason of being not real opponent in the case, whereas its joinder was ordered by the Court pursuant to Article 76 of Civil and Commercial Procedure Law and as it should be regarded as the representative of the minor the Second Respondent  and therefore it should be regarded as a real opponent in the case and to allow it to present applications and requests in the case.  Additionally, it should be allowed to assert the conclusive oath.  Therefore and for the above reason, the appealed judgment shall be considered defective and obligates its overturning, and whereas such pleading does not sound for the reason that as per the provision of Article 4 of the Amiri Decree no. 66/2004 concerning the establishment of the Public Authority of Minor’s Affairs that “shall aim to preserve, develop and to protect the Monetary rights and the money of the Minors and whoever is in similar position of a Minor in a manner that will guarantee their welfare and be generally beneficial to all of their affairs, and in pursuing so, the Authority shall have the right to do the following: 1- guardianship over Minors and the Conceptus who do not have Guardian or Chosen Custodian,……… 3- To supervise the disposals of Guardians and Custodians and to look into their performance of duties and their practices as prescribed by the Law..……7- To prepare and to execute the necessary Studies and Planning to develop the Monies of the Minors and the similarly situated and other monies that are managed by the Authority pursuant to the rules of the Islamic Sharia”, indicates that the Legal Guardianship over Minor’s Money will not be assumed by the Authority except in the situations as exclusively provided for, and one of which situation is the Guardianship over Minors and the Conceptus who do not have Guardian or Chosen Custodian, and therefore, and in the event any of which is present the Guardianship of the Authority will diminish with respect of all management aspect of Minors Money or the dispositions thereof as prescribed and provided for by the Law and the Guardian or the Custodian shall only represent the Minor in all cases whether for or against such Minor, and where the Law is silent from providing for the situation of suing the Authority or to be joined or to join itself in such Cases, whether such joinder is requested by the Litigants, or by the Authority itself or by the Court or the subject requires the opinion of the Authority as provided for by the application of the Law of the Guardianship over Money before the decision is rendered by the Court, all of which will not render the Authority to be real Litigant of the case or to enjoy whatever is the rights of Litigants.  And whereas this is the case and whereas the Conclusive Oath is owed to Litigants of the Case where it considered as reliance by the requested Litigant on the conscience of Litigant who will take it, and by requesting so, such Litigant has waived its rights to use all other method of evidence of proof and it shall not be permitted for such Litigant, after the Conclusive Oath was sworn, or after it was taken back against such Litigant and failed to be sworn, to introduce any other evidence to refute what have been conclusively determined by the Oath, a matter that warrant that such Oath should not be asserted except among the real Litigants of the Case, and whereas the Appealed Judgment has concluded that the Conclusive Oath which was asserted by the Authority the Respondent against the Appellants, is not legally valid as being asserted, within the existence of the Minor’s Guardian, by the Authority which is not the real Party of the Case, thus, such Judgment shall not considered as violating the Law.  And therefore, this ground is not acceptable.  And whereas, the two Appellants pleaded in their second ground that the appealed judgment is defective in reasoning and erred in applying the law and to explain that they stated that the appealed decision has taken the retraction of the First Respondent of its admission in the case which was made at the Hearing dated 24^th of May 2006, a fact that negates that such admission has conclusively and convincingly proven the right even though such admission in such manner and as it was issued proves the claimed right and it should not be retracted.  Therefore and for that reason, the appealed judgment is defective and ought to be overturned.  And whereas such pleading is correct for the reason that pursuant to the Provision of Article (302) of Civil and Commercial Procedures provides that “the Judicial Admission is a confession of the Opponent or his special representative before the Judiciary in a Law Suit leveled against such Opponent during the proceeding of such a Case ….”, and pursuant to Article (303) of the same Law that “the admission is the conclusive evidence against the confessor and exclusively concern him….” Its shall construe as that the Judicial Admission is what has been issued by the Opponent in Judicial Council and intended to admit the right of its Opponent on the claimed right and as it presented in a manner which will exclusively and convincingly proves the admitted right, and the issuance of which in this manner will render it as a conclusive evidence against the Confessor and in such manner, it shall not be retracted to the extent it indicates denial of the claimed right.   And whereas this is the case and whereas the appealed judgment has excluded the admission made by the First Respondent which was rendered in the Hearing of 24/5/2006.  And after the Hearing of one of the witness of proof which was relied on by the Appellants to prove their case which included that the Successor has informed the witness that the purchase of the Property the subject matter of dispute was done for the account of the Appellants and Appellants paid the purchase price and there is a remainder amount which belongs to that Successor and thereafter the First Respondent decided to admit the case relying on her confidence on the Witness.  And whereas the appealed judgment has disregarded the conclusiveness of this admission for the reason that the same Confessor came to the Court at the Hearing which was dated 14/6/2006 and stated that it she does not admit the case and the ownership is proven to the Successor to the extent that it will negate her previous confession which will not support the proof of admitted right in a conclusive and convincing manner and such condition was required to be met at the time of issuance of the admission, and the fact that retraction was made after the admission was rendered, will not be considered.  And whereas the appealed judgment has contradicted this conclusion, it should be regarded as defective and violates the law to the extent that will obligate its overturning.  And whereas the two Appellants pleaded in the third ground that the appealed judgment has violated the law and to explain that they stated that the appealed judgment has disregarded the witness’ testimony which was heard at the investigation made by the First Instance Court, where such judgment states that the value of the property the subject matter of dispute exceeds the cap allowed to be proven by verbal statement, and that there is no ethical barrier that will stand to deprive her from obtaining written statement for the reason that the facts that proven by testimony is to prove the sham registration of the property under the Successor’s name, in addition to the existence of the moral barrier which prevented the Appellants from obtaining the written statement for the reason that the Successor is the older brother of the Appellants and he was regarded as a father by them, a fact that such fact will render the judgment as defective and warrants its overturning and where as this pleading does not sound for the reason that the rule of prohibition against proofing by statement evidence in situation where the written evidence is required is not a matter of Public Order, and whoever inclined to assert the defense of not permitting the evidence of proof by statement, shall address the Trial Court before the hearing the testimony of Witnesses, if such Party is silent to assert the same, such silence shall be considered as a waiver of its right of evidence of proof as prescribed by law, and  therefore in such case is not permitted to be asserted thereafter.  And therefore, and whereas this is the case and whereas the documents of the case, does not include any defence from the Respondent that the verbal statement is not permissible, until the judgment of transferring the case to the investigation was completely executed by hearing the testimony of the witnesses of the Appellants to prove their case and to refute the defence of the Respondents, as included in the witness’s testimony, and that wherever the fact the subject matter of the testimony is, should consider waiver of the defence of not to allow evidence of proof by statement, and such waiver shall stand between the judgment and disregarding statements of the Appellants on such basis.  And whereas, the appealed judgment from this conclusion has violated and disregarded the statement of the Appellant and therefore shall be regarded as rendered defective and such defect will obligate its overturning.  And whereas, and for the correctness of the second and third grounds of appeal the Court shall overturn the appealed judgment in the part where it decided to reject the case in respect of the share of the Appellant in the property the subject matter of dispute.  And whereas, the subject matter is capable of being reviewed and whereas the judgment of the First Instance Court has correctly decided that there is relative sham adhered to concealed agency in which the Successor of the Respondent has given his name to the Appellants to purchase the property, and therefore, the effects of the purchase contract shall be assumed by the Appellant and consequently, the ownership of the Appellants of their shares in the disputed property.  And such result and effect shall apply between the Appellants and the Successor of the Respondents and Respondent’s Successors and does not need any procedure, where the principal does not need to challenge against his agent and to defend its ownership of whatever purchase of such agent in a new disposal made by such agent  to transfer the ownership.
 
Therefore, the Court has decided to overturn the appealed judgment in the part where such judgment dismissed the appeal and reject the case in respect of the shares of the Appellants, and further the Court obligates the First two Respondents to bear the expenses and further decided to dismiss Appeal no. 263/2006 and to uphold the appealed judgment in the part where it was decided in favor of …. , …. the daughters of 0000000 and obligates the Appellants to bear the expenses of this part of the judgment.