In the name of God the most gracious the most merciful
NATIONAL SUPREME COURT
Bakr Mohamed Bakr Abdulatif
Hussain Alfaki Alameen
Mohamed Al Nazeer Ahmed
TRIAL OF Zainab Mohamed Idris
The appellant was convicted under section 159 of the penal Code 1991, and punished by a
fine equal to SP 300, and if she does not pay she will be punished with imprisonment for
two years, however, she was discharged for good conduct, this judgment has been issued by
Umbada Civil Court.
Following an appeal to the Public Court, the conviction and punishment had been
cancelled, whereupon, she requested permission against her ex-husband (divorcer) the
complainant, to initiate criminal procedures against him. The Trial Court refused to grant
her permission and the claim was rejected. The claim has also been rejected by the Court of
Appeal, therefore, this claim was made, which she named it as review, based on a mistake
of the court of Appeal when it had upheld the judgment issued by Umbada Public Court
and requested that this decision shall be reconsidered.
In form:The claim can be treated pursuant to our power under section 188 of the Criminal
Without going into the details of the Court of Appeal’s merits, which was right in its
conclusion, I believe the following:
First: the right of litigation is guaranteed to the public at large whenever there is preliminary
evidence, as it is a natural and constitutional right before being a legal right.
Second: if we state otherwise, people would refrain from litigating, in fear of being subject to
accusation if they have not proved their allegation.
Third; in our case, there was a preliminary evidence which led to the initiation of the
proceedings by the Public Prosecution until it had been referred to the Court, which had
decided conviction and punishment, and then the judgment had been cancelled by the
Public Court, which does not give her the right to pursue her divorcer because she has only