In the video: A lawyer explains the difference between the “decisive oath” and the “supplementary oath” to prove rights before the courts

Al-Marsad newspaper: Lawyer Khaled Al-Youssef explained the difference between the “decisive oath” and the “complementary oath” to prove rights before the courts.

The decisive right

Al-Youssef said during his interview with the “Yahala” program: “The decisive oath” is when the judicial department wants to hear the oath from a specific person, so it asks him to appear in person. He attends according to the procedures taken, shows his card in front of the judge, appears on the screen, and then the judge asks him the question about the issue he wants to swear on.

Written oath

He added: If the judge understands his answer, he asks him to read the oath written in front of him or tells him to listen to this oath and repeat with me. Then the judge says to him (I swear to God Almighty that so-and-so does not owe me a single riyal), and this swearer repeats it after the judge and then says, “By God Almighty.”

Complementary oath

He pointed out: The complementary oath is the property of the judicial department, and sometimes you do not find that the right is as clear as the sun, but it prevails over the preponderance of one of the two sides, either the plaintiff or the defendant, given that the judiciary has discretionary authority to evaluate these pieces of evidence and deduce from them what can lead this judicial department to a certain doctrine. If the department finds The advantage is in favor of one of the disputants, but it is not yet reassuring.

Missing evidence

He continued: This means that the evidence did not lead it to a ruling alone. In this case, the department has the authority to direct the complementary oath to the stronger party. If the oath is a complementary one, the department will direct it and tell you, “Rejoice, the ruling is yours,” explaining: The complementary oath was given this name because it completes the incomplete evidence.