The Federal Supreme Court
Family Affairs Circuit.
Supreme Court Decision No / 178/2016
Issued by the Supreme Court, Family Law First Circuit headed by his Excellency Albshra Osman
Salih, as president and the membership of their Excellencies Abdelhamid Mohammed Abdalhameed
and Dr. Ahmed Mohammed Abdalmajeed the Supreme Court Magistrates
(Presented: - Record of Appeal No 45 /c/ 2015 River Nile Court of Appeal Aldamr. The record of the t
suit No / 515 /g/ 2014 Shandi court of first instance recorded under No 344 / Objection / 2015 filed at Adamr Court
Applicant: Muzammil Abdullatif
Opponent: Hanadi Awad Al-Hassan
This is an application for objection submitted by Advocate Hafiz Khamis on behalf of applicant
Muzammil Abdullatif Ahmed, the application was submitted and fees there to was paid on 16/7/2015.
The application was against the River Nile Appeal Court decision No. a. seen. sheen / 451 /2015 issued
on 28/6/2015. The application submission date was 7th of July 2015. Hence its formally acceptable.
Subjectively the applicant filed a suit before Shandi court for family affairs claiming the joining to him
of his son Sakhr from the mother for the reason of the expiration of the period for the female custodian
of a male child term; the child is over 7 years old.
The defendant admitted the claim and added that she was more suitable for custody of the child the
plaintiff denied that allegation, the court shouldered the defendant to prove her allegation of suitability
and capability for custody of the child. Upon case hearing the court of First Instance dismissed the
plaintiff suit. The plaintiff appealed against the judgment to the court of appeal and the court of appeal
dismissed the appeal confirming the Court of First Instance Judgment. The plaintiff raised this
objection application grounding the application on the following:
1-the opponent did not prove her suitability for custody and what was said by the witnesses is not a
strong foundation on which the decision could be based.
2- the fact that the plaintiff mother is of an old age is not a reason to deprive her of the custody of the
child sense it was not proved that she is disable.
3- distinction in the course of education could not be considered as a further merit.
4- The plaintiff has the upper hand.
Finally, the applicant concludes his application by claiming to quash the low court's decision
Upon perusing the court’s decision and thoroughly reviewing the objection application, I would say at
the outset that the suitability always means one of these two factors: The First:
1- one party has merits not existing in the other party; -