Red Sea State Court of Appeal
Family Affairs Circuit
Before: His Excellency; - Ahmed Mohammed Alfaki
His Excellency: - Mohammed Alnazeer Ahmed Al-Mubarak.
His Excellency: - Mohammed Ibrahim Alhaj.
Mohammed Abdulrazek Al-Sharif
Vs
Sohaila Saleh Omer

A. Sein. Shein / 26 /2008
In the case No, 653/2007 (Divorce for diversion) the court of family affairs has issued on 15/5/2008
its decision ordering
1- the arrest of the defendant by any police officer outside the
Jurisdiction of the court and to be brought before the court and criminal accusation case be opened
against him under Section 94 of the Criminal Law.
2-the defendant advocate shall be banned from appearing in this case.
3-Advocate Mohammed Abdalmotall Alsharief shall be denied the appearance in this case.
As against this decision, advocate Mohammed Abdalmotall Alsharief submitted before us a request
for appeal on the 19th of May 2007. Initially we decide to accept the appeal as a matter of mere
formality
The reasons announced to be the bases of the appeal could be summed up to be; 1-Issance of an arrest warrant looks very strange since the provisions of section 85 of the civil
Procedure Act and the provision of section 86 of the same act talked about the court authority to
summon and order witnesses to appear and present the document which they may have had in
their possession whereas section 86 provides for the court authority and power to compel the
witnesses to appear before the Court. This provision does not apply to the suit parties. The law is
obvious in this regard. The law in case is clear in stipulating that in the case of the defendant
absence when dully summoned, the right action ensuing as result of that is to hear the case and
issue a default decree in the absence of the defendant. The court in this situation is not
empowered to issue an arrest warrant and it worth mentioning that the defendant is represented by
an advocate. The advocate appeared on behalf of the defendant in all court's sessions.
2-Issuance of a decision depriving the advocate of appearing on behalf defendant under s. 58/3 for
exploiting and prolonging the proceeding is not just since in the opinion of appellant advocate, the
post bonding of the case was for reasons beyond the control of the party concerned and due to the
parties hoping to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute.
3-the court should have summoned the defendant as the Principle of justice necessitates
appointing anther advocate to represent the defendant instead of issuing an arrest warrant.
4- The advocate thinks that its strange decision of the court when refusing the appointment of the
advocate as an Arbitrator although he represents one of the parties. This for the reason that the
appointment may not help to conclude an amicable settlement although the advocate when
practicing the role of arbitrator he shall be motivated by the principles of justice and the duties
imposed upon him by the profession code of ethics and conduct .The advocate further added,that
its judicially noted that the arbitrators shall be appointed from the parties relatives and the
defendant agreed to the advocate appointment .
And finally, the advocate relying on the above reasons asked for the quashing of the Court of First
Instance decision
Upon perusing the case records and papers we can rule on the reasons of application as follows: 1-in the first instance it is necessary to reach a unified understanding on the procedural law that
shall be applied to adjudicate on the cases of family affairs. Although the law is the Civil Procedure,
but the part of that law is the provisions of schedule 3 annexed to the main law and not the

Select target paragraph3